JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The accused-appellants along with five other persons had faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 147 I.P.C. Later on, the charge was changed and Section 302/149 I.P.C. was also added because of the death of one Rajendra. 2. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court acquitted four of accused persons, namely, Gokul, Girdhari, Tika Ram and Kaluram; and acquitted accused-appellants also for the offence under Section 302/149 I.PC. but found them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 325 and 3231.P.C. The learned Trial Court heard the parties on the point of sentence and passed order on 8th December, 1983. At that time, a request was made from the side of the accused-appellants that they be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act but the same was refused by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be extended only by the High Court and not by the Trial Court. For these observations, learned Trial Court placed reliance on Sundar Das & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1979 (4) R.Cr.Cases 232) . In that case it has not at all been held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be extended only by High Court and not by the Trial Court. Moreover, looking to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the observations of the learned Trial Court are appears to be incorrect. Under Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code 'Special reasons' are to be recorded by the learned Trial Court in case the learned Trial Court refused to enlarge the person found guilty on probation. 'Special reasons' have not been defined under Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code but in Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal (A.1.R. 1979 S.C. 964) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the 'Special reasons'. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo's case (supra) that in case the 'Special reasons' are exist then it is obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to a person who has been found guilty for the offence for which benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be given. 3. 3. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court failed to give 'Special reasons' rather the reasons given by the learned Trial Court cannot be held to be in accordance with law. 4. As said earlier, if this case is judged in the light of observations made by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu's case (supra), I am of the opinion that the present appellants can be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1982. The appellants are on bail and their sentence has been suspended by this Court when the appeal was filed against their conviction by them. In this case, appeal has been filed on 19.12.83. There is nothing on record to show that the accused-appellants either repeated any offence or did any such act which may disentitle them for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, in my opinion, the Court could not have declined to deal with the case of the appellants for the benefit of probation in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. So, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Trial Court on which it based the conviction against the appellants, do not call for any interference as they are based on best appreciation of evidence on record and the view taken by the Trial Court in the presence of material on record do not appear to me to be unreasonable. Hence the impugned conviction is maintained under Section 325 and 323 I.P.C. But, instead of passing any sentence against them, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court to appear before it for undergoing sentence awarded as and when called upon during the period of one year from the date of execution of the bonds and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The bonds should be furnished within a period of two months, failing which the Court shall see that the accused shall undergo sentence awarded and remaining part thereof. To the above extent, the impugned judgment is modified. The bonds should be furnished within a period of two months, failing which the Court shall see that the accused shall undergo sentence awarded and remaining part thereof. To the above extent, the impugned judgment is modified. The record be sent back.Impugned judgment modified. *******