S. K. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, a convict under S. 324, IPC, has preferred this revision against the order of sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to three months' rigorous imprisonment, passed on 14-1-1988, by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal Appeal No. 87/1986, preferred against the judgment dated 25-2-1986 in Criminal Case No. 108/1984, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sabalgarh. ( 2 ) THE incident occurred on 18-1-1985 following a quarrel between PW 2 Anandibai, the injured, and acquitted co-accused Lalaram, the uncle of the applicant. A 'danda' of 'chabutra' fell down because of the dash by Lalaram. PW 2 started abusing on altercation between the two and on saying of Lalaram the accused/applicant caused a simple injury to Anandibai with a 'farsa', resulting in an incised wound, 3 1/2 cm x 1/2 x 1 1/2 cm on left middle of head (parietal ). The trial Court convicted the applicant under S. 324, IPC, and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, one month's simple imprisonment. Co-accused Lalaram was also convicted under S. 324/34, IPC. In appeal, Lalaram was acquitted, but the conviction of the applicant under Section 324, IPC, was maintained reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine only, which was enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1000/-, in default, to three months' rigorous imprisonment. ( 3 ) SHRI D. N. Kulsharestha, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is an employee in Nagarpalika, Kailaras, as a pump attender; the applicant being a first offender ought to have been granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, the 'act'), and for not granting the benefit under S. 360, Cr. P. C. , or under the Act, special reasons ought to have been recorded under S. 361, Cr. P. C. , which is imperative. ( 4 ) IN my opinion, the contention has got a force, as a look to the impugned judgment shows that in para 16 the appellate Court simply has observed that looking to the age of the accused and the circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of probation. P. C. , which is imperative. ( 4 ) IN my opinion, the contention has got a force, as a look to the impugned judgment shows that in para 16 the appellate Court simply has observed that looking to the age of the accused and the circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of probation. ( 5 ) THE criminal jurisprudence dealing with imposition of sentence has undergone a change with the enactment of the Act, which is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. See Rattanlal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444 : 1965 (1) Cri LJ 360. ( 6 ) IT is with this purpose of reformation of the offender that Sections 360 and 361, Cr. P. C. have been enacted. Section 360 empowers the court to deal leniently with a person who has committed an offence for the first time by releasing him on probation of good conduct instead of giving punishment, in order to give him a chance of reforming himself and to protect him from being corrupted and turned into a regular criminal. If the court refrains from dealing with an offender under Section 360, Cr. P. C. , or under the provisions of the Act, or any other law for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where the court could have done so, Section 361, which is a new provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, makes it mandatory for the Court to record in its judgment the 'special reasons' for not doing so. Section 361 thus casts a duty upon the Court to apply the provisions of Section 360 wherever it is possible to do so and to state "special reasons" if it does not do so. In the context of Section 360, the "special reasons" contemplated by Section 361 must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. In the context of Section 360, the "special reasons" contemplated by Section 361 must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. See Bishnu Deo v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 964 : (1979 Cri LJ 841 ). ( 7 ) LOOKED with that view, in fact, no special reasons have been assigned by the appellate Court for not applying the provisions of the Act, which was mandatory for the Court to record in its judgment for not giving the benefit under Section 360, Cr. P. C. , compelling the court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender. The applicant being an employee in the Municipality, a first offender deserves to be given the benefit of probation under Section 360, Cr. P. C. , as the incident was not pre-planned nor the injury caused was of serious nature. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of the offence as also the character of the offender, it is expedient to release the applicant on probation of good conduct for a period of one year from the date of execution of bond. The applicant's sentence of fine shall remain suspended during this period, provided he executes a bond of Rs. 1000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sabalgarh, within a period of one month from today. If the applicant fails to maintain peace and good behaviour during the period, the sentence of fine shall be received by the applicant. ( 8 ) THE revision is accordingly disposed of in the manner indicated above. Order acordingly. .