Honble YADAV, J. — Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Mangilal Gour, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore submitted a complaint under Sec.29 of the Police Act on 12.4.1982 in the, court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore alleging therein that while discharging the function of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, he passed a judicial order on 16.1.1982 for production of police diary in CR No. 118/78 in Criminal Case No. 93/89 known as Berisal Singh v. Daulat Singh & others. The revisionist was required to produce the aforesaid case diary on 23.2.1982 in pursuance of the judicial order passed by Shri Mangilal Gour, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore . In abundant caution and looking into the urgency, the learned Magistrate wrote a letter to the revisionist on 19.1.82 directing him to produce the case dairy on 23.2.82. The revisionist did not care to produce the case diary on 23.2.82. Thus, the complainant had no option except to give notice under Sec.29 of the Police Act to the revisionist through the Superintendent of Police, Jalore directing therein to produce the case diary on 2.3.82 but the revisionist deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by Shri Mangilal Gour, Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Jalore and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the competent court. It is also alleged that Superintendent of Police, Jalore wrote a letter to the revisionist on 27.2.82 directing him to produce the police diary before the court concerned on 2.3.82. It is also alleged that when the revisionist received a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Jalore only then he started to make search of the case diary but did not pay any heed to the order passed by the court summoning the police diary. (2). In support of the case, the prosecution examined Shri Mangilal Gour, Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Jalore. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial. The revisionist also appeared in the witness-box as DW 1. An application submitted by him on 1.3.82 was placed on record and was marked as Ex.D/1. (3). After trial, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate held the revisionist guilty of wilfull disobedience of the direction passed by the competent court of law and held him guilty of the offence under Sec.29 of the Police Act vide judgement dated 11.7.1983. (4). An application submitted by him on 1.3.82 was placed on record and was marked as Ex.D/1. (3). After trial, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate held the revisionist guilty of wilfull disobedience of the direction passed by the competent court of law and held him guilty of the offence under Sec.29 of the Police Act vide judgement dated 11.7.1983. (4). After recording the finding of guilt under Sec.29 of the Police Act, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore also gave full hearing on the question of sentence to the revisionist and after considering all the rellevant facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate sentenced revisionist to pay one months salary i.e. for the month of July, 1983 as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. (5). Against the conviction and sentence dated 11.7.83 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the court of Sessions, Judge, Jalore. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the revisionist on 17.10.84. (6). The revisionist being aggrieved with the judgements of both the courts-below preferred this revision petition before this Court under Sec. 397, Cr.P.C. (7). I have heard Mr. G.R.Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H.R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and gone through the record of the courts- below. (8). From a close scrutiny of the judgement passed by both the courts-below in the light of evidence available on record, I am fully convinced with the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below which is eminently just and proper and does not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. A further close scrutiny of both the judgments of the subordinate courts lead to an irresistable conclusion that the finding of guilt recorded by both the court-below are based on analytical discussion of evidence on record. In support of the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below, the sub-ordinate courts had given cogent and convincing reasons which are perfectly legal and valid. However, in support of the aforesaid finding. I would like to give me own additional reasons for dismissing the present Cr. Revision Petition. (9). In support of the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below, the sub-ordinate courts had given cogent and convincing reasons which are perfectly legal and valid. However, in support of the aforesaid finding. I would like to give me own additional reasons for dismissing the present Cr. Revision Petition. (9). In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present revision petition, the mandatory provision of Sec.29 of the Police Act, 1861 is reproduced below in extenso: — "Sec.29. Penalties for neglect of duty etc. : — Every Police Officer who shall be guilty of any violation of duty or wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority, or who shall withdraw from the duties of his office without permission, or without having given previous notice for the period of two months or who, being absent on leave, shall fail without reasonable cause, to report himself for duty on the expiration of such leave, or who shall engage without authority in any employment other than his police duty, or who shall be guilty of cowardice, or who shall offer any unwarrantable personal violance to any person in his custody shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty not exceeding three months pay, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both." (10). A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions of Sec.29 of the Police Act, 1861 throw a flood of light that the words, "Rules and Regulations" refer to such rules and regulations as are properly framed by the competent authorities, so also the words "lawful order" refer to any order which any officer may lawfully give any individual or specific body of individuals under his command. Offences Under Sec.29 are not limited to the wilful breaches or neglect of a rule or regulation or a lawful order but include any violation of duty. (11). In the present case, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jalore passed a lawful order on 16.1.82 directing the revisionist to produce the police diary in exercise of powers conferred u/s 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is also reproduced below: — "Sec. 162. (11). In the present case, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jalore passed a lawful order on 16.1.82 directing the revisionist to produce the police diary in exercise of powers conferred u/s 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is also reproduced below: — "Sec. 162. Production of dicuments: — A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to the Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility, The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the court. The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility." (12). The aforesaid Section made it clear; that if any police officer is directed to produce a document, which is in his possession or power to bring it to the court notwithstanding any objection, which there may be to its production or to its admissibility must produce the document before the Court. As a matter of fact, the validity of any objection is to be decided by the Court and not by the officer. In proper cases, instead of keeping the document on the record, the court may inspect the document directed to be produced before him and after inspection it can return the same to the authority or witness through whom it is summoned. (13). In the instant case, it is admitted that the police diary in C.R.No. 118/78 was in possession and power of the revisionist to produce the same before the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore. It is apparent on the face of record that irrespective of judicial order which was passed by the learned Magistrate on 16.1.82 directing the revisionist to produce the aforesaid police dairy on 23.2.82, he did not care to produce the same before the Court. A letter was written by the Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Jalore on 19.1.82 in abundant caution for production of the said case diary which too could not able to create any impact on the revisionist to produce the same. A letter was written by the Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Jalore on 19.1.82 in abundant caution for production of the said case diary which too could not able to create any impact on the revisionist to produce the same. When the learned Magistrate gave a notice to the revisionist under Sec.29 of the Police Act through the Superintendent of Police, Jalore directing in the notice itself to produce the case diary before the Court on 2.3.82 was also deliberately disobeyed by the revisionist. In my opinion, the aforesaid course of conduct was adopted by the revisionist to show superiority of the police power and privilege which is to be depricated. (14). It is pertinent to mention here that Rajasthan State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sec.45 and 46 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No.V of 1861) framed statutory Rules known as Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, which has been by Notification No.F.16 (2) Home (A.Gr.I)65 dated 12.4.65 published in Rajasthan Gazette, Part IV-C Extra- ordinary dated 18.10.1965. In Chapter VIII of the said Rules, it is clearly provided that Police Officer is bound under provisions of Sec.162 of the Indian Evidence Act to produce any document in his possession or power if summoned to do so, but if such document is an un -published official record relating to any affair of State, he is prohibited by Sec.123 of the Indian Evidence Act from giving evidence from it. It is true that under sub-rule(2) of Rule 8.18 of Chapter VIII of the said Rules, certain documents are enumerated as privilege documents which includes the case diary at item No.5. (15). I have given my anxious thought to the aforesaid Rule but its application is not attracted in the present case, inasmuch as, in compliance of the court order dated 16.1.82, the revisionist ought to have produced the case diary before the court and should have raised objection before the court itself claiming to be a privilege document. As a matter of fact, the validity of such objection, if ; taken by such police officer it is required to be decided by the court itself. This is a general practice prevailing throughout the country that the courts of Law treating the police diary (case diary) to be privilege police documents used to see its contents and after inspection such case diaries are always returned. (16). This is a general practice prevailing throughout the country that the courts of Law treating the police diary (case diary) to be privilege police documents used to see its contents and after inspection such case diaries are always returned. (16). Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted before me that the revisionist has unblemished service record, therefore, both the courts-below have wrongly refused the benefit under Sec.360 and 361 Cr.P.C. I have given my anxious thought to the aforesaid submission, which is not acceptable. According to me, Sec.360, Cr.P.C. is not a mandatory provision. The exercise of power under Sec.360 Cr.P.C. is purely discretionary. Under Sec.361, Cr.P.C. the Court has to give reasons for not extending the benefit of Sec.360, Cr.P.C. or Probation of Offenders Act to the revisionist. (17). A perusal of the judgements given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore as well as learned Sessions Judge, Jalore lead towards an irresistable conclusion that both the courts- below after recording the finding of guilt of wilful dis-obedience and neglect in producing the case diary before the court; both the courts have given separate opportunity on the question of sentence. Both the courts-below especially , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgement has given cogent and convincing reasons for not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the revisionist. Since learned appellate Court has affirmed the finding of learned Chief Judl. Magistrate not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the revisionist, the learned appellate court was not required under the law to give its detail reasons for refusing the benefit under the said Act. (18). However, it is apparent from para 5 of the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge while affirming the conviction and sentence of the revisionist including refusal to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act has given his own cogent and convincing reasons, which is eminently just and proper and does not require indulgence of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sec.397, Cr.P.C. (19). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-ordinate Courts are hereby affirmed.