JUDGMENT 1. - This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.3.1992 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bali (hereinafter referred to as the Lower Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1990, whereby the Lower Appellate Court affirmed the finding of guilt recorded by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Case No. 419 of 1985. However, the Lower Appellate Court extended benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and directed the petitioner to execute personal bond of the sum of Rs. 2,000/- to keep peace and tranquillity for the period of 2 years, and under Section 5 of the Act to pay Rs. 1500/- as prosecution expenses. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Lower Appellate court impugned, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.RC. 2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this revision petition are that PW-8 Kan Singh lodged a First Information Report Exhibit-P6 with Police Station, Sumerpur against the petitioner alleging therein that on 9.12.1985 while he was coming from Dhanapura after patrolling while he was near to village Paladi at 4.45 RM., petitioner Ganpat Singh abused him and assaulted. He sustained injuries vide Exhibit-P4. After investigation, police filed charge sheet on 19.12.1985 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 353 and 332 I.P.C. On 18.12.1986, the trial court framed charge against the petitioner under Section 332 I.RC. The prosecution produced PW-1 Shambhu Singh, PW-2 Jai Singh, PW-3 Bhanwar Lal, PW-4 Moot Singh, PW-5 Dr. Ashok Bhargava, PW-6 Kesar Singh, PW-7 Bhabhoot Singh and PW-8 Kan Singh and produced Exhibit-P1 statement of Bhanwar Lal, Exhibit-P2 Statement of Jai Singh, Exhibit-P3 arrest memo of the petitioner, Exhibit-4 injury report, Exhibit-P5 site inspection note, Exhibit-P6 report lodged by PW-8, Exhibit-P7 First Information Report, Exhibit-P8 site map and Exhibit-P9 order dated 7.5.1981 issued by Superintendent of Police, Pali, wherein it is shown that complainant PW-8 Kan Singh is working in the Police Department on the post of constable. Accused made statement under Section 313 Cr.RC. and produced DW-1 Mod Singh and DW-2 Sona Ram. On appreciation of the evidence produced before the trial court, the trial court found that the petitioner was guilty for the offence under Section 332 I.RC. Accused made statement under Section 313 Cr.RC. and produced DW-1 Mod Singh and DW-2 Sona Ram. On appreciation of the evidence produced before the trial court, the trial court found that the petitioner was guilty for the offence under Section 332 I.RC. and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction of the trial court, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 332 I.RC. However, instead of sending the petitioner to jail, the Lower Appellate Court extended benefit of Section 4(1) of the Act with direction noticed above. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment of the trial court as well as the Lower Appellate Court and record of the case. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case necessary ingredients to attract Section 332 I.RC. are not made out inasmuch as there is no evidence that complainant Kan Singh PW-8 a police constable was prevented from performing his duty. There is no evidence that PW-8 was hurt while he was performing his duty. Simply because the police constable happens to be public servant, it cannot be said that he has been discharging his duties at the relevant time of the occurrence. In order to attract the provisions of Section 332 I.PC., it is for the prosecution to establish that the public servant in discharging of his duties as public servant was assaulted or hurt with intent to prevent or deter that public servant from discharging his duties as a public servant. In the instant case, it is evident from Exhibit-P6 and the statement of PW-8 Kan Singh that he had completed his duty of patrolling and after competition of his duty, he was going towards out-post on the way opposite to a liquor shop, the petitioner met him and said that he was an instrumental for the arrest of the accused petitioner. There was some hot exchanges and thereafter the complainant went ahead to the out post and when he was near to Chabbtara and Purohitan, the petitioner came from behind and abused him. The petitioner also gave fist blow on the face of the complainant. On perusal of the statement of PW-8 Kan Singh, it nowhere reveals that hurt was caused to him while discharging his duties as a public servant with intent to prevent or deter in discharging his duty as a public servant.Section 332 I.RC. reads as under: "332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. - Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. A bare reading of above section shows that if the public servant is assaulted or caused injury/hurt while discharging his duties as public servant with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duties as public servant, then such person is liable for punishment as provided under the Section. 6. In the present case as noticed above, necessary and essential ingredients for constituting offence under Section 332 I.RC. are not present. It is not a case of the prosecution that the complainant PW-8 Kan Singh, police constable was prevented or deterred from performing or discharging his duties as public servant. Here, complainant had already performed his duty namely patrolling and thereafter he was coming back to the police out post after performing his duties. Simply because, the complainant happened to be a police constable a public servant, it cannot be said that he has been discharging his duties at the relevant time of the occurrence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had knowledge that the complainant constable was performing his duty. Not only this there is no evidence that the petitioner caused hurt to the complainant with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his public duties. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had knowledge that the complainant constable was performing his duty. Not only this there is no evidence that the petitioner caused hurt to the complainant with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his public duties. This, on careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner caused hurt to the complainant police constable while he was discharging his duties as a public servant. However, from the statements of prosecution witnesses and statement of Dr. Ashok Bhargava PW-5, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the fact that the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to complainant PW-8 Kan Singh, who received injuries in the hands of the petitioner. Injury report Exhibit-P4 has been proved by Dr. Ashok Bhargava PW-5, which shows that the complainant had sustained four injuries by blunt weapon of simple in nature, which is punishable under Section 323 I.RC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jaswinder Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, All India Law Reporter 1995(1) Page 857 . In the above referred case, a revision petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order of framing charges under Sections 333, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 I.PC. The High Court was of opinion that Sections 332, 333 and 353 I.RC. are not attracted on the facts of the case and remanded the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration on questions of the charges framed against the accused therein. It was held that it is not even the case of the prosecution that the accused had knowledge that the constable was performing his duty, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused with an intent to prevent or deter the complainant from discharging his duties, caused injuries to him. Thus, on these premises the matter was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration on question of the charges to be framed. In the instant case, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 332 I.RC. However, from the evidence the offence under Section 323 I.RC. is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Accordingly, the finding of the guilt for the offence under Section 332 I.RC. is modified to offence under Section 323 I.RC. However, from the evidence the offence under Section 323 I.RC. is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Accordingly, the finding of the guilt for the offence under Section 332 I.RC. is modified to offence under Section 323 I.RC. which is punishable with imprisonment for one year, or fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or both. The Lower Appellate Court instead of sending the petitioner to jail, has extended benefit of the Act. In my considered opinion, no error can be found with the order of the Lower Appellate Court extending the benefit of the Act. However, the fine imposed is reduced to Rs. 500/-. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is a Government servant and if the conviction is maintained, he would lose his service. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1278 , wherein it was held that in view of the peculiar facts of the case the conviction should not affect his service. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that conviction should not affect the service of the petitioner. 10. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. *******