JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the learned lower Courts. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.11.1992 passed by the, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 42/92 affirming the judgment dated 26.3.1992 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, by which the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 279 of I.P.C. and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rs. Two hundred) on the first count and 15 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/ (Rs. Fifty) under the second count. It was further directed that in - default of payment of fines, the petitioner would further undergo S.I. for 15 days and 7 days, respectively and that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Shri Ravi Kasliwal does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and his sole argument is that the learned lower Courts without assigning any reason have declined to give the benefit of probation to the petitioner, which is per se illegal. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and contends that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is neither excessive nor shocking to the conscience. As regards the benefit probation, which has not been given by the learned lower Courts, he submits that no specific reason has been given in the impugned judgments. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6. Section 361, Cr.P.C. mandates that where the Court declines to give the benefit of the provision under Section 36, Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to an accused person then except record in its judgment the special reason has not done so. 7. The learned trial Magistrate has mentioned that since the petitioner carelessly driven a camel cart resulting into death of a boy of tender age, therefore, he was not entitled to be released on probation. This is not a special reason for not giving the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The same reason has been repeated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This is not a special reason for not giving the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The same reason has been repeated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. For declining the benefit of probation, the age, character or antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors have to be considered and special reasons should be recorded in the judgment. 8. In the instant case, the occurrence took place on 26.3.1985 i.e. more than 9?h years ago. The petitioner was a young person aged about 20.years at that time. The offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. is punishable with maximum two years imprisonment. There is no allegation that the petitioner is a previous offender. On the other hand, it is apparent that it was his first offence. The victim was a boy aged five years. The alleged incident took place abruptly. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on probation. 9. In the premise of the above discussion, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, I.P.C., instead of sentencing him, it is hereby directed that the petitioner be released on probation on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif an Judicial Magistrate,. Kishangarh, District Ajmer, with the stipulation that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period of one year and that he shall appear before the Court to serve out the sentence if the Court so directs. However, the fines imposed upon the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279, I.P.C. are raised from Rs. 200/- and Rs. 50/- respectively, to Rs. 400/- and Rs. 100/-, respectively, and the said amount if deposited by the petitioner, shall be paid as compensation to Smt. Patasi W/o Rodu Ram Meghwal, R/o Madanganj, Kishangarh, the mother of the deceased Rajender. A period of 45 days from today is granted to deposit the fine. In case,. 200/- and Rs. 50/- respectively, to Rs. 400/- and Rs. 100/-, respectively, and the said amount if deposited by the petitioner, shall be paid as compensation to Smt. Patasi W/o Rodu Ram Meghwal, R/o Madanganj, Kishangarh, the mother of the deceased Rajender. A period of 45 days from today is granted to deposit the fine. In case,. the petitioner fails to deposit the aforementioned amount within the stipulated period, the learned trial Judge shall issue a non-bailable warrant ensuring his attendence to serve out the sentence.Petition partly allowed. *******