JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal has been preferred under section 11(2) of Probation of Of fenders Act against the order dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, Camp Parbatsar. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant-Narain Ram and respondents Nos. 3 to 12 are residents of village Gunwanti, Distt. Nagaur. It was on 31.12.1981 at 8.00 p.m. that all the accused-respondents along with about forty persons belonging to their party, armed with lathis and guns, committed trespass into the house of the appellant-Narain Ram and they assaulted inmates of the house. As a result, Nara in Ram, his wife Smt. Dhapu, Bheraram, Uda Ram, Pemaram, Kistoora Ram, Rameshwar, Mohan Lal, Om Prakash, Chandra Ram and Smt. Jasoda, wife of Bheru were injured. On 18.12.1981, when the wife of appellant-Narain Ram, named Dhappudi, had gone to the public tap, in front of the house of Baney Singh, Smt. Sayar Kanwar, wife of Baney Singh, Munni Kanwar and Nagendra Singh, daughter and son of Baney Singh, asked Smt. Dhapu to abstain from taking water from the water tap and to stand aside because she was a Chamar by caste being untouchable, the splashes of water from earthen pitcher will slop them. However, with a great difficulty, Smt. Dhapu could manage only one pitcher of water and while she was coming back to her house, the said three persons felled down her water pitcher which was broken to pieces. She was also subjected to assault to be looted of her ornaments. The matter was, lastly, with the intervention of the D.I.G. Police, reported to the police and, consequently, a complaint under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code was filed in the executive Court. Consequently, the accused-persons were proceeded against under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code This annoyed and enraged accused-respondents and, therefore, they committed the offences of rioting, house trespass and assaults in the night of 31.12.1981. After investigation, the accused-persons were challaned under sections 452, 147, 148, 323 & 149 IPC in the Court of Special Magistrate (under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Nagaur. The learned trial Magistrate, commenced with the trial. The accused-respondents were charged with the commission of offences punishable under sections 458, 323/149 & 148 IPC to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence trial was completed. 3. The learned trial Magistrate, commenced with the trial. The accused-respondents were charged with the commission of offences punishable under sections 458, 323/149 & 148 IPC to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence trial was completed. 3. After completion of trial, relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses subjected to assault by the accused party, the learned trial Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 30.6.1986, convicted them under section 323, 452 & 148, IPC. He imposed rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 50 /- each under section 323, IPC, rigorous imprisonment of 18.months and a fine of Rs. 100/- each under section 148, IPC and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 100/- each under section 452, IPC and also ordered that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. It was further ordered that in case in default of fine, each accused would undergo 75 days' simple imprisonment. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the accused-respondent preferred appeal No. 40/86 in the Court of Session, Merta, who vide his impugned judgment and order while upholding the judgment of conviction of the accused-respondents under the aforesaid sections impugned in the judgment under appeal, set aside the order of sentences of imprisonment and fine and, instead thereto, gave benefit of provisions of Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 thereby ordering that accused-respondents be released on probation of good conduct and peaceful behaviour for a period of one year. Besides, each accused-respondent was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 75/- under each count, aggregating to Rs. 2,250/-, to the complainant. Admittedly, the accused-respondents entered into bonds of good conduct and to be of good conduct and to be of peaceful and good behaviour before the trial Court and the amount of compensation was also, implication, deposited. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of giving benefit of being released on probation of good conduct to the accused-respondents, the complainant has preferred this appeal, as above. 6. Even after listing this appeal for more than once none has appeared on behalf of the complainant to prosecute this appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of giving benefit of being released on probation of good conduct to the accused-respondents, the complainant has preferred this appeal, as above. 6. Even after listing this appeal for more than once none has appeared on behalf of the complainant to prosecute this appeal. As a result, this appeal is quite old, I have heard the learned P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and, considered the impugned order carefully. 7. Besides, it is also to be appreciated that the record of the lower Court has been weeded out as per the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta. 8. Though, as are the contentions raised in the memo of appeal, the accused-respondents Nos. 3 to 12 were so convicted under the aforesaid offences and, as is also borne out of the record, Baney Singh, Samander Singh and Dilip Singh, were also previous convicts and the case of Samander Singh was still worse who was also a previous convict in many cases and was proceeded against under the Rajasthan Control of Goonda Act, 1975 but, in totality of circumstances, as is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, this incident to alleged to have taken place on 31.12.1981. Since then a period of almost 15 years has passed. There is no other complaint brought on the record showing that the accused-respondents, being released on probation of good conduct, had abused it. That being so, when the learned appellate Judge, in his wisdom, imposed a substantial amount of compensation to be realised as a fine imposed in criminal cases and also ordered the release of the accused-respondents on probation of good conduct, Since none of the aforesaid offences carried sentences of imprisonment of more than 10 years and, therefore, when there was no opposition from the side of the complainant before the learned Sessions Judge, while passing impugned order dated 15.12.1992, there does not appear any apparent illegality in the impugned order. Though it cannot be denied that it was a serious case of commission of atrocities on the members including the women-folk of Scheduled Caste but, looking to the facts that a period of about 15 years has passed and the impugned order has also, apparently, been executed on payment of aggregate amount of Rs. Though it cannot be denied that it was a serious case of commission of atrocities on the members including the women-folk of Scheduled Caste but, looking to the facts that a period of about 15 years has passed and the impugned order has also, apparently, been executed on payment of aggregate amount of Rs. 2,250/- as compensation and, therefore, in the changed circumstances and the developments which have taken place subsequent to the date of occurrence as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it does not appear just and proper to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at such a late stage. 9. In this view of above discussion, there are no compelling circumstances to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, on the basis of above discussions, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.12.1992 is affirmed. It is further ordered that in case the amount of compensation awarded under the impugned order has not as yet been realised /deposited, the same shall be immediately recovered as a fine and shall be paid to the complainant without any delay. Though the learned Sessions Judge, Merta extended benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused-respondents liberally specially to Samander Singh, a hardened criminal and a previous convict in many cases, the District Administration is expected to ensure safe and secure lives not only to the members of the family of the appellant but to the citizen at large.State appeal dismissed. *******