JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these revision petitions arise out of the same impugned judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both these two revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 27.4.95 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioners Har Lal for the offence u/s. 326 IPC and Chhitar and Gopal for the offence u/s. 323 IPC. Learned trial court convicted accused petitioner Har Lal for the offence u/s. 326 IPC and sentenced him to one year's RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI. Accused petitioners Chhitar and Gopal were convicted for the offence u/s. 323 IPC and each of them was sentenced to one month's RI. 3. The facts of the case are contained in the judgment of two courts below and moreso in the judgment of the trial court in detail, but the only prayer which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1983 and the accused petitioners have already undergone some sentences. Not only this, both the courts below have erred in not extending the benefit of section 361 Cr.P.C. or section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused petitioners Chhitar and Gopal. He has contended that accused petitioner Har Lal should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. In this connection, he cited before me Gurucharan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1992 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 680 4. There can be no dispute that the incident relates to the year 1983. Division Bench of this court in Gurucharan's case (supra) has held that for the offence u/s. 326 IPC where the occurrence took place in 1988, the sentence already undergone with some increased fine will meet the ends of justice. In the present case, petitioner Har Lal who has been convicted for the offence u/s. 326 IPC has already undergone the sentence for more than 50 days. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served if the accused petitioner is sent to the jail and sentence already undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice with increased fine. In the present case, petitioner Har Lal who has been convicted for the offence u/s. 326 IPC has already undergone the sentence for more than 50 days. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served if the accused petitioner is sent to the jail and sentence already undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice with increased fine. So far as the case of accused petitioners Chhitar and Gopal is concerned, both have been convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s. 323 IPC. Under section 361 Cr.P.C. wherein any case the court could have dealt with an accused person u/s. 360 or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. Both the courts below did not grant the benefit of beneficiary legislation to the accused petitioner in treating under section 361 Cr.P.C. without giving any reason for not doing so, hence the petitioners are liable to be released on execution of 1 bonds in the ends of justice. 5. Consequently, I partly allow both these two revision petitions. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioners as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court, it is directed that instead of sentencing accused petitioners Chhitar and Gopal for the offence u/s. 323 IPC, the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is extended to each of them provided each of them furnishes before the trial court a surety bond of Rs. 2000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when required during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. One month's time is given to furnish the aforesaid bonds in the trial court. 6. Accused petitioner Har Lal is sentenced to already undergone by him u/s. 326 IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's RI. The accused petitioner should deposit the fine with the trial court within one month failing which the trial court shall taken necessary steps in this regard. Out of fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 4000/- be paid to injured Har Pal as compensation for the injuries received by him. *******