JUDGMENT The two persons, i.e., Pramod Kumar and Babbushah were tried in Sessions Trial No. 93/84 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. Accused Pramod Kumar was prosecuted under section 307 I.P.C. and sections 25 (1) (a) & 27 of the Arms Act in connection with causing injury on 23rd and 28th September, 1984 with the intention of causing death by firing Katta at Manendra Kumar, Nagaria, the complainant. Co-accused Babbushah was charged under section 307 with the aid of section 34 I.P.C. for involving in the offence dated 23.9.1984. The trial Court after considering the evidence on the record relieved Pramod Kumar, the appellant before this Court, from the liability of crime under section 307 I.P.C., sections 25 (1) (a) & 27 of the Arms Act but fastened him with the liability of crime under section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder for two years R.I. The other co-accused Babbushah, who was charged under section 307 with the aid of S. 34 I.P.C., was found innocent and was accordingly acquitted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur under the judgment and order dated 25.3.1988. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not find it a fit case for arguing the matter on merits. He only submitted that the appellant was below 21 years of age and, therefore, he was entitled for being tested under section 360 Cr.P.C. He submitted that before the trial Court a prayer was made in this regard but the same was refused by saying that section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides that if a person below 21 years of age is sentenced to imprisonment, there should be special reason for doing so and that special reason is available in the present case. But he has refused to grant the benefit under the beneficial legislation on the basis that the complainant Mahendra Kumar Nagaria was a witness in some other case wherein Rakesh Chaourasia was the accused. The present appellant happened to be the friend of Rakesh Chaurasia. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is no basis for refusing the benefit under section 360 Cr.P.C. The Court has not recorded any finding that the appellant was a previous convict or he has no fixed abode to live. The present appellant happened to be the friend of Rakesh Chaurasia. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is no basis for refusing the benefit under section 360 Cr.P.C. The Court has not recorded any finding that the appellant was a previous convict or he has no fixed abode to live. Learned counsel for the State also not disputed this fact and he submitted that the ends of justice would be satisfied if the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is bound for three years for keeping peace and remaining of good behaviour. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it is a case where the appellant could be released on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, the sentence as imposed on the appellant, who is on bail, is suspended on the condition of his furnishing a bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) as well as recognizance bond before the C.J.M. Chhatarpur and for which purpose he shall appear before the C.J.M., Chhatarpur alongwith the certified copy of this judgment on 26th September, 1994 and until that date he shall continue to remain on bail. On 26th September, 1994 his bail-bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall stand discharged. In the event of non-execution of the bond, this order shall stand automatically revoked and the appellant shall be called upon to serve out the sentence as has been imposed on him by the trial Court. The appellant on being released on probation, if found violating the conditions of the bond, disturbing the peace and exhibiting indecent behaviour shall be called upon to serve out the sentence as has been imposed on him by the trial Court. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.