JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dated 28.10.1983 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences Under Sections 325, 323 & 447 Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default one month S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default one month S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default seven days S.I. respectively. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide judgment dated 22.7.1986 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the record and the judgment given by the Courts below. I do not find any error on the point of law to have been committed by the Courts below. Therefore, no interference is called for so far as maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the above mentioned offences. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner should have been released on probation as his age is 21 years and there is no previous conviction against him, co-accused Pakiya who was held guilty of the offences Under Sections 323 & 447 Indian Penal Code was given benefit of probation by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the petitioner has suffered imprisonment for about 17 days and in case benefit of probation is not extended to the petitioner then the sentence may be reduced to already undergone. The incident relates to the year 1982. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has given cogent reasons for refusing to extend the benefit of probation. The case of co-accused Pakiya is on different footing because the petitioner caused two fractures to the injured perkiya. Therefore, it is contended that the sentence passed against the petitioner may be maintained. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the case cited before me Birbal & Another v. State of Raj., 1991 RCC 153 . Therefore, it is contended that the sentence passed against the petitioner may be maintained. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the case cited before me Birbal & Another v. State of Raj., 1991 RCC 153 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the incident took place in the year 1982 almost 14 years ago, there is no previous conviction against the petitioner on record and he has suffered imprisonment for about 17 days I am of the opinion that the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended to him. 5. In the result the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction it is hereby directed that the petitioner be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to receive sentence when called upon to do so during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.Revision Partly Allowed. *******