JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this petition Under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 27.7.93 passed Under section 9(3) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, whereby he held that the accused non-petitioners have violated the terms and conditions' of probation bonds executed by them and imposed upon each one of them a penalty of Rs. 50/-. The petitioner is son of complainant Mohd. Rafiq. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that on the report of Mohd. Rafiq, the father of the petitioners in respect of an incident, which took place on 12.07.84, a criminal case was registered at police station Vidhayak puri, Jaipur, against accused non-petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 Sharif Mohd. & Nasir Mohd. and five others and after investigation a challan was filed against them in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City. The learned Magistrate after trial by his judgment dated 14.2 85 convicted them for offences Under sections 147, 323, 324/149 Indian Penal Code but instead of sentencing them, released each of them Under section 4(1) of the Act, 1958 on their furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs. 2,000/- each for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Jaipur City vide his judgment dated 22.11.85 rejected the appeal filed by the accused non-petitioners and maintained their conviction 3. It appears that during the continuance of the period of probation bonds executed by the accused non-petitioner nos. 2 & 3, on 28.2.85 they assaulted Mohd. Rafiq in court premises at Jaipur, for which a criminal case was registered at police station Sadar (Jaipur) and after investigation a challan Under sections 341, 323 Indian Penal Code as filed against them in the court. After trial the learned Magistrate found the accused non-petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 guilty for the said offences by his judgment and sentenced them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City vide his judgment dated 27.7.89 maintained their conviction and sentence. This Court by its order dated 4.12.1990 also dismissed their revision petition and upheld their conviction but set aside the sentence of fine imposed upon them and released them off probation. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City vide his judgment dated 27.7.89 maintained their conviction and sentence. This Court by its order dated 4.12.1990 also dismissed their revision petition and upheld their conviction but set aside the sentence of fine imposed upon them and released them off probation. 4. On 1.3.85, petitioner Abdul Rashid filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jaipur City alleging that since accused non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 have violated the conditions of the probation bonds they should be sentenced of the offences, for which they had been convicted. The learned trial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 27.07.93 held that the non-petitioner nos. 2 & 3 have violate the conditions of their probation bonds, but since the incident had taken place about nine years ago and they have been regularly attending the court and have also been released on probation by this court for the subsequent offence committed by them & Under section 9(3) of the Act imposed upon each one of them a penalty of Rs. 50/-. Hence this petition. 5. I have heard Mr. PC. Jain the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Poddar, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.A. Siddique learned counsel for non-petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and carefully perused the relevant record. The contention of Mr. Jain is that admittedly, these accused non-petitioners had violated the terms & conditions of their probation bonds dated 14.2.85 and assaulted petitioner's father, Mohd. Rafiq, for which their conviction has been upheld by this Court, the learned Magistrate ought to have sentenced them for original offences, for which they were convicted. According to him, the learned Magistrate has thus committed material irregularity in simple imposing a fine of Rs. 50/- on them, which tantamounts to abuse of process of the court, hence the impugned order be quashed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor as also Mr. Siddique have hotly contested this petition and asserted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. 50/- on them, which tantamounts to abuse of process of the court, hence the impugned order be quashed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor as also Mr. Siddique have hotly contested this petition and asserted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. They have pointed out that the bonds executed by the accused non-petitioners were not.forfeited by the learned Magistrate, and since the terms and conditions of their probation bonds were violated for the first time, in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has used his discretion fairly and judiciously in imposing the penalty as provided Under section 9(3)(b) of Act, 1958 and the impugned order does not amount to abuse of any process of the court. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Since the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order on the application filed by the petitioner. At this stage, it cannot be held that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Moreover, action Under section 9 of the Act can be taken by the Court either on the report of Probation Officer or otherwise. In the instant case, the Magistrate has initiated proceedings Under section 9 of the Act on petitioner's application. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Shri PC. Jain on this count is hereby repelled. 8. Section 9 of the Act, 1958 deals with the procedure in case the offender fails to observe the conditions of the bond. Section 9(3) clearly proclaims that if the court, after hearing the case, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of the bond or bonds entered into by him, it may forthwith (a) sentence his for the original offence; or (b) where the failure is for the first time, then without prejudice to the continuance in force of the bond, impose upon him a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees. 9. Sub-Section (4) of Section 9 lays own that if a penalty under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) is not paid within stipulated period, the Court may sentence the offender for the original offence. 9. Sub-Section (4) of Section 9 lays own that if a penalty under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) is not paid within stipulated period, the Court may sentence the offender for the original offence. Therefore, a careful reading of provisions in Section 9 of the Act unmistakable indicates that if an offender violates or fails to observe terms and conditions of the probation bond, the Court has two options, firstly it may sentence the offender for the original offence and secondly, if such failure is for the first time, then without prejudice to the continuance in force of the bond, it may impose upon him a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees. 10. Shri Jain has contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have forfeited the bond executed by the accused non-petitioners and ordered for realisation of the amount therefore under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am not at all impressed by this argument because the Probation of Offenders Act, itself is an exhaustive Code and in Section 9, a detailed procedure has been provided in case an offender fails to observe any terms and conditions of the bond. Section 9 of the Act 1958 does not provide for straight way forfeiture of the amount of the probation bond, but if the Court has reason to believe that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of the bond entered into by him, it may issue warrant for his arrest or may, if it thinks fit, issue a summon to him and his sureties, if any, requiring him or them to attend before it when the offender is brought before the Court, it may either remand him to custody until the case is concluded or it may grant him bail. After hearing the case, if the Court is satisfied that offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of the bonds then it may forthwith ever sentence him for the original offence or when the failure is for the first time, then without prejudice to the continuance in force of the bond, impose upon him a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees. If the penalty is not paid within the stipulated period, then the Court may sentence the offender with the original sentence. 11. If the penalty is not paid within the stipulated period, then the Court may sentence the offender with the original sentence. 11. In the instant case, there is no dispute that during continuance of the probation bonds executed by the accused non-petitioners on 28.2.95, they assaulted the petitioner's father Mohammed Rafiq and thus has failed to keep peace and violated the terms and conditions of their probation bonds for the first time.- Though for the said second incident, conviction of the accused non-petitioners was upheld upto this court but they had been released on probation. The trial court did not forfeit their bonds. The incident for violation of the bonds occurred on 28.2.85 i.e. about eight and half years prior to the passing of the impugned order. The learned Magistrate had two statutory options, either to sentence the accused non- petitioners for the original offence or to impose upon them a penalty not exceeding Rs. 50/-. The learned Magistrate pressed into service the second option incorporated Under section 9(3) (b) of the Act and for this he has given valid and sufficient reasons namely the accused non- petitioners were regularly attending the court and that the incident had taken place eight years ago. He, therefore, rightly did not think it proper to sentence the accused non-petitioners for the original offence. Since failure for observing the conditions of the bonds was for the first time and the probation bonds executed by non-petitioners were continuing, hence in my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate used his discretion fairly and judiciously. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, he has neither committed any illegality nor material irregularity in exercise of his discretion nor the impugned order is tantamount to abuse of any process of the court. To my mind, it is not at all a fit case, wherein this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 12. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is devoid of any force and merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******