JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1986 passed by Sri V.S. Kulshrestha, then Sessions Judge, Etawah in criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1985, Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and another v. State of U.P. and another, Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 1985 Gajendra Misra and another v. State and Criminal Revision No. 171 of 1985, Rajiv Tripathi Advocate v. Gajendra Misra and others. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the complainant Rajiv Tripathi filed a complaint against the accused Gajendra Misra, Ravindra Nath Bhateley, Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria, Shailendra Singh Rathaur and Kishan Lal Jain under Sections 500, 501 and 502, I.P.C. with these allegations that in the weekly local newspaper a news was published that the wife of the complainant had eloped with his nephew. Accused Gajendra Misra was the Chief Editor, Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria was the Editor, Ravindra Nath Bhateley was owner, Shailendra Singh Rathor. was the Circulation Manager of the newspaper and Kishan Lal Jain was owner of the Press where the aforesaid newspaper was published. This news item was false and had been published to defame the complainant Rajeev Tripathi Advocate with an object that he may not do legal pairvi of Criminal Case No. 318 of 1982, Om Prakash v. Gajendra Misra, on behalf of complainant Om Prakash. The accused appeared in that case and after trial of the case the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the charges under Sections 500 and 502, I.P.C. were proved against Gajendra Misra and Shailendra Singh Rathor and charges under Sections 500 and 501 were sufficiently proved against Ravindra Nath Bhateley and charge under Section 500 I.P.C. was proved against Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Kishan Lal Jain. He therefore convicted Gajendra Misra and Shailendra Singh Rathor under sections 500 and 502, I.P.C. and sentenced them to six months’ S.I. for each of the offences and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of them and it was further provided that in case of default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo simple imprisonment of three months more. 500/- on each of them and it was further provided that in case of default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo simple imprisonment of three months more. Ravindra Nath Bhateley was convicted under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C. and he was sentenced to 6 month’s S.I. for each of the offences and was also sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- with a provision that in case of default in payment of fine he will have to undergo three months’ further simple imprisonment. Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Kishan Lal Jain were convicted under Section 500 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and it was provided that in case of default in payment of fine they will have to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order accused Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Shailendra Singh Rathor filed criminal appeal No. 107 of 1985, Gajendra Misra and Ravindra Nath Bhateley filed Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1985. The complainant Rajeev Tripathi being dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment filed criminal revision No. 171 of 1985. 5. The aforesaid appeals and revision were heard and decided by Sri V.S. Kulshrestha vide his judgment and order dated 29.7.1986. He dismissed the aforesaid criminal revision, and the criminal appeals were partly allowed. He maintained the conviction of the appellants but suspended the order of sentence of imprisonment against them and they were given benefit of provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly they were directed to furnish personal bond of Rs. 7,000/- each and two different local sureties for the same amount for keeping peace for a period of one year and being of good behaviour during this period and it was provided that the accused be released on executing these personal bonds and surety bonds of good conduct. The order of fine imposing upon them was confirmed and they were given seven days’ time to deposit the fine and it was provided that in case of default in payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court. It was further provided that out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. The order of fine imposing upon them was confirmed and they were given seven days’ time to deposit the fine and it was provided that in case of default in payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court. It was further provided that out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 300/- each would be paid from each item of the fine to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of fine shall remain deposited in the Government Treasury. Aggrieved with this judgment and order Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Shailendra Singh Rathor have filed this revision. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist made only one submission before me. He contended that whenever any convict is given benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, his case is to be dealt with either under Section 3 or 4 of the above Act and under Section 4 of the Act he is to be released on probation of good conduct. He further submitted that when benefits of these provisions are given to an offender, no punishment can be imposed upon him simultaneously at the time of granting him benefit of aforesaid provisions and so the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge releasing the accused persons on probation of good conduct and simultaneously maintaining the order of fine is illegal and invalid. I agree with his contention. When an accused is admonished under Section 3 of the Act, no further order is to be passed in his case and the matter comes to an end. However, when the accused is released on probation of good conduct, no order of sentence can be passed simultaneously with the above order of release on good conduct and the only order regarding punishment which can be passed in such cases is that during the period of release on probation of good conduct, he shall appear before Court to receive sentence whenever required to do so. But no order either of imprisonment or of fine can be passed alongwith the order of release on probation of good conduct. But no order either of imprisonment or of fine can be passed alongwith the order of release on probation of good conduct. Hence the order of learned Sessions Judge maintaining the order of fine when he released the accused on probation of good conduct is totally illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 8. There is, however, one more aspect of the case. No fine can be imposed while giving benefit of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to the offenders, but under Section 5 of the above Act the Court has got jurisdiction to order the offender to pay compensation and costs to the complainant and the Court is within its power to pass such an order of compensation and cost to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I order that the accused revisionists shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- each as compensation to the complainant under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act. I allow two months’ time to them for this purpose; failing which this amount can be realised in accordance with the provisions of 386 and 387 Cr. P. C. The accused revisionists shall also execute personal bonds and surety bonds of good conduct if not already executed by them before the Court concerned within this period of two months, and during this period of two months no coercive process shall be issued against them. 9. Revision stands partly allowed subject to above observations and directions. ————