JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg dated 5.12.1991 where by the conviction of accused petitioners Meerdal and Bhuru has been upheld for the offence under section 325 IPC and also upheld the conviction of Meerdal, Bhuru and Mst. Rahimi for the offence under section 323 IPC, but benefit of probation was allowed. At the same time, it is directed that Bhuru and Meerdal shall pay compensation of L 2,500/- to injured Roozdar, L 1,000/- to injured Deen Mohammed and L 1,500/- to injured Rehmani in default of payment of compensation to undergo two months imprisonment. 2. The necessary facts in short are that on 26.7.1980, Mst. Rehmani wife of Buddu Singh lodged a written report to Police Station, Kaman alleging therein that she was coming to her home after purchasing vegetables from the shop then near the house of Suineri, Mst. Rahimi wife of Jaimal and Mst. Shakina met her from whom she demanded the money for grains they took from her. They gave beating to her. She alleged that Mst. Rahimi called Meerdal, Bhuru and Salmu sons of Jairnal and they all gave beating to her with lathies. It is further alleged that Meerdal inflicted lathi on her head which she took on her hands as a result of which her hand was injured. On hearing the cries, her son Roozdar and Deenu came there and they were also badly beaten by the accused persons with lathies and they sustained the injuries on their persons. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR was lodged in the Police Station, Kaman for the offence under sections 323 & 325 IPC. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offence u/Secs. 323 & 325 IPC and charges were framed against the accused petitioners. During trial, the prosecution has examined 8 prosecution witnesses and the statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Considering the material on record, the petitioners were convicted for the offences under sections 323 & 325 IPC. In appeal, their convictions were upheld but benefit of probation was allowed. 3. In revision before me, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that when probation is allowed, there is no question of payment of compensation. In appeal, their convictions were upheld but benefit of probation was allowed. 3. In revision before me, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that when probation is allowed, there is no question of payment of compensation. He placed reliance on the provision of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. and submitted that compensation can be allowed only out of fine as per provisions of Section 357(1)Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the decision of their Lordships in the case of Girdhari Lal v. State of Punjab (1992) 1 SCC 608 wherein their Lordships have held that when no fine is imposed, no cost can be awarded u/ Sec. 357(a). 4. It is true that Section 356(a) provides that compensation or cost can be awarded out of the fine imposed. But, at the same time, Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act clearly provides that Court can direct the offenders to pay compensation or costs. The relevant provisions of Section 5 reads as under:- "5. Power of Court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs-(1) the Court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or Section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay- (a) such compensation as the Court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and (b) such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reason a the." 5. The above provision clearly empowers the Court to direct the accused to pay just and reasonable compensation to the injured. 6. It is pertinent to note that the benefit of probation can be allowed under section 360 Cr.P.C. as well as under sections 3 & 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. In the case (supra), before their Lordships the controversy was pertaining under section 357(a) Cr.P.C. and not under section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act. The benefit of probation can be extended to the accused under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, but there is no provision for sustaining the fine. On the contrary, Section 5 of the Act clearly provides and empowers the Court to direct the accused to pay compensation to the injured. 7. The benefit of probation can be extended to the accused under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, but there is no provision for sustaining the fine. On the contrary, Section 5 of the Act clearly provides and empowers the Court to direct the accused to pay compensation to the injured. 7. In the case in hand, the benefit of probation was allowed under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the benefit of probation to the accused petitioners. Considering the fact that the probation has been allowed U/ Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and there is no provision of sustaining fine under that Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was absolutely right in directing the petitioners to pay compensation as provided under section 5 of the Act. Before their Lordships, the provision of Section 5 was not inconsideration. Therefore, the case relied on by the Counsel for the petitioners is of no help on the facts of the case. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.Revision Petition dismissed *******