JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision owes its origin in the judgment dated March 23, 1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur upholding the conviction of the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 38/84 awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Chomu vide its judgment dated 3rd July, 1996 whereby the accused petitioners were convicted as under:Khemaram, Deeparam and Narayan :U/s. 147 IPC : Six months simple imprisonment, under section 323 IPC : Six months simple imprisonment. Under section 325/149 IPC : Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.Chhaju Ram :U/s. 147 IPC : Six months simple imprisonment. Under section 324 IPC : One year simple imprisonment. Under section 325/149 IPC : Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under section 435 IPC : Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Arjun :U/s. 147 IPC : Six months simple imprisonment. Under section 324 IPC : One year simple imprisonment. Under section 325/149 IPC : Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The only argument advanced by Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the accused petitioners ought to have been granted probation looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners have been facing trial since 1983 and from the material on record it has not been established that the petitioners were previously convicted. 3. Reliance was placed on Kuldeep Singh alias Pappi Singh and Pappa v. State of Punjab, (Recent Criminal Reports 1983 page 217) , Reghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, (Recent Criminal Reports 1988 (1) page 345) and Chhindo v. State of Punjab (Recent Criminal Reports 1985 (2) page 251) . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant non-petitioner and Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the accused petitioners are not entitled to be released on probation. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant non-petitioner and Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the accused petitioners are not entitled to be released on probation. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. Admittedly the previous conviction of the accused petitioners has not been established. Before a person can be held to be a previous convict, the same has to be proved strictly in accordance with Section 298 Cr.RC. 7. A perusal of the judgment dated July 3, 1996 of the learned trial court demonstrates that the accused petitioners were facing trial since 1983 and there was nothing on record in respect of their previous conviction. Even otherwise there is no bar under the Probation of Offenders Act to release the accused on probation who are previous convicts. 8. Having regard to the fact that the accused petitioners have been facing trial since 1983 I would like to give them another opportunity in the interest of justice to reform themselves by releasing then on probation. Let them execute a bond under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 operative for a period of three years in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court, binding themselves to come and receive sentence when called upon by the court and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Before the bonds are accepted each of the accused petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant Ishra. As soon as the compensation is deposited by the petitioners and bonds are executed before the learned trial court they shall be released from the judicial custody. Thereafter the learned trial court shall summon the complainant Ishra and shall arrange to pay him the compensation deposited by the accused. 9. The petition is thus partly allowed to the extent indicated as above. The conviction is however maintained. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.Petition partly allowed. *******