JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 9.4.99 passed by learned Special Judge and Addl. Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case Appeal No. 47/97 (24/97) whereby the appeal was partly allowed and the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under section 332 and 352 I.P.C. was maintained and sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in each offence. The petitioner had preferred to appeal against the judgment dated 25.7.94 made by learned Judicial Magistrate, Paragraph in Criminal Case No. 434/88, who passed the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- else to undergo further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the point of conviction. I do not also find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. I have perused the 1 5 judgments of the two Courts below and hold that the conviction of the petitioner as aforesaid is justified. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is a case between an Asst. Engineer and the employee of his office. The dispute was only regarding the allotment of Govt. accommodation and the alleged incident happened on 16.4.36. The petitioner has faced protracted criminal proceedings for last 13 years. The matter has been compromised, which has been filed in this Court. The offences are non-compoundable, but in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be given the benefit of probation. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor has informed that the parties have compromised their dispute and now they are enjoying good official relations. 4. In the above facts and circumstance of the case, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of probation should be granted under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner under section 332 and 353 I.P.C. is hereby maintained. However, the sentence passed against the petitioner on both the counts is hereby set aside. 5. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner under section 332 and 353 I.P.C. is hereby maintained. However, the sentence passed against the petitioner on both the counts is hereby set aside. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be to released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing a personal bond of sum of Rs. 5,000/- and a surety in the like amount to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The conviction and the benefit of probation shall not have any adverse effect on the service of the petitioner by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner shall be released forthwith. He shall furnish the personal bond and surety bond within ten days from his release, failing which the sentence awarded to him shall be executed by the Trial Court.Revision disposed of accordingly. *******