JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. The three petitioners herein were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, vide his judgment dated 30th March, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 253-11/99 for committing offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, vide his judgment dated 30th August, 2005 even though upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by doing away with the sentence of imprisonment altogether and retaining only that part of the sentence whereby the fine was imposed. In addition, the learned Appeal Court also ordered the petitioners to pay Rs.' 5,000/- each by way of compensation to the complainant. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 30th August, 2005 the petitioners have filed the present revision in this Court, which was taken up for consideration by the Court for the first time on 9th January, 2006. 2. this Court in the order passed on 9th January, 2006 upheld the finding of "guilty" qua all the petitioners because this Court found that both the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence correctly found the petitioners guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. The petition filed by the petitioners accordingly was dismissed by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 9th January, 2006. 3. Even while the petition was dismissed by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 9th January, 2006, in the course of the said order this Court, upon and after noticing that the learned Appeal Court while modifying the sentence part had completely done away with the sentence of imprisonment, observed that under Section 325, IPC, it is mandatory for a Court to award the sentence of imprisonment which may extend to 7 years because Section 325 clearly lays down that whoever causes grievous hurt is liable to be awarded the punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years. this Court also observed that the imposition of fine as prescribed in Section 325 is in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. Even while calling for the explanation of the learned Presiding Officer of the Appeal Court, this Court issued notices to the petitioners through their Counsel Mr. this Court also observed that the imposition of fine as prescribed in Section 325 is in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. Even while calling for the explanation of the learned Presiding Officer of the Appeal Court, this Court issued notices to the petitioners through their Counsel Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, asking them to show cause as to why the aforesaid part of the judgment of the Appeal Court be not modified and they be sentenced to imprisonment as had been done by the trial Magistrate. 4. Mr. Maniktala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners even though admitted that Section 325, IPC does lay down as a mandatory and binding legal requirement that any person convicted under Section 325 is bound to receive an appropriate sentence of imprisonment of either description, has submitted that the occurrence being very old and not of a very serious nature, while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I should not interfere with the order under challenge in this petition. He has relied upon two Single Bench judgments of Patna High Court in the case of Ramchander Rai and and Ors. v. Ram Betas Tewari reported in and Punjab High Court in the case of The State v. Kangan Suba Gujjar reported in. Alternatively Mr. Maniktala has submitted that I should invoke Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and grant the benefit of this provision to the petitioners. 5. I have gone through the aforesaid two judgments of Patna High Court and Punjab High Court and find that in both of them the trial Magistrates had committed the irregularity and illegality in not sentencing the accused for imprisonment despite convicting them under Section 325, IPC and on references made to the High Courts by the learned Sessions Judges, the High Courts found that the occurrences were not of very serious nature and even though in both the cases the High Courts found that indeed the illegality has been committed by the trial Magistrates, the High Courts did not decide to interfere in exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction. In the present case the situation is different because the trial Magistrate here had indeed sentenced the petitioners to simple imprisonment of six months each but it is the Appeal Court which committed the illegality and irregularity of completely ignoring the binding provision of law and by doing away the sentence of imprisonment altogether, retained only the "fine" part of it. 6. Despite noticing the difference between the present case and the aforesaid two cases cited by Mr. Maniktala, I Jo tend to agree with him that the incident now is indeed quite old, it having occurred in the year 1998. I also noticed that it was not of a very serious nature. The petitioners have been on bail right through the trial and during the proceedings before the Appeal Court as well. Taking a lenient view in the matter, I do feel that this is a case where the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being attracted, should be applied. Even while I do set aside the order passed by the learned Appeal Court in so far as it does away with the imprisonment of six months but at the time by invoking the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 I hold that the petitioners should be held entitled to the benefits of this Act because I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case Section 4 having been attracted, its benefit should be granted to the petitioners. 7. While finally disposing of the petition, I send back the matter to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath, District Kangra, with the directions to him to grant the benefit of Section 4 of the Probations of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners by observing all requirements arising from and relating thereto. 8. I have gone through the explanation rendered by the Presiding Officer (Additional Sessions Judge), Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala vide his communication dated 28th January, 2006 addressed to the Registrar General of this Court, in which he has admitted about having made the mistake "inadvertently". Even though the learned Presiding Officer has made an admission about his having committed the mistake, the fact remains that a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge committed a blatant illegality in either total ignorance of the mandatory and binding provision contained in Section 325, IPC or in total disregard thereto. Even though the learned Presiding Officer has made an admission about his having committed the mistake, the fact remains that a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge committed a blatant illegality in either total ignorance of the mandatory and binding provision contained in Section 325, IPC or in total disregard thereto. Either way his act is unpardonable. It is not expected from a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge that he is ignorant about an important provision of law contained in Section 325, IPC. If he is indeed ignorant, this is inconceivable. If, on the other hand, he was not ignorant about the legal provision, violating and breaching this provision in total disregard to its binding nature is unpardonable. In my considered opinion, the Presiding Officer does require to be dealt with on the administrative side. I, therefore, direct that the Registrar General of this Court shall take appropriate steps in the aforesaid direction. 9. Based on the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath on 8th May, 2006, who shall carry out the directions contained in this order in its letter and spirit.