JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2003 by which benefit of probation has been extended to the accused respondent who is a habitual offender and the dated 19.8.2002 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 95/2000 has been modified by which the accused respondent was convicted for the offences under Sections 452, 325 and 323 I.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner lodged a report Ex.P-1 with Police Station Sadar, Sikar stating therein that on 7.9.1998 at about 7.30 AM in the morning he was sitting in his shop where Laxman, Jhabarmal, Ram Chander and Jhujha Ram came armed with deadly weapons in their hands and started beating him and committed theft of Rs. 3,000/- and Satpal, Mahavir and Parameshwari saved him.3. Upon the said report, police registered the case and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused Jhujha Ram, Laxman Ram,Jhabarmal and Ram Chander and during the course of trial charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 452, 323, 325 I.P.C., during the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and thereafter the statements of the accused respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and after trial the trial Court vide its Judgment dated 19.8.2002 acquitted the accused Laxman Ram, Ram Chander and Jhabarmal from all the charges and convicted the accused respondent Jhunjha Ram for the offences under Sections 425 (sic 452), 323 and 325 I.P.C.Against the said the accused respondent preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sikar who vide its judgment dated 16.9.2003 extended the benefit of probation to the accused respondent.4. Against the said order the petitioner his preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record made available to me.5. Learned counsel Mr. Against the said order the petitioner his preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record made available to me.5. Learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand appearing on behalf of the petitioner has specifically draw the attention of this Court upon a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court reported in (1975) 3 SCC 272 , titled as Kamroonissa v. State of Maharashtra the relevant part of the judgment runs as under:- "Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 6(2) read with Sections 3 and 4 - Calling report of Probation Officer - Magistrate refusing to call for such report and stating his reasons for not applying the Act to the case of the accused - Supreme Court calling for the report and upholding Magistrate's decision The appellant who was below 21 years on date of conviction had been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and pay fine of Rs. 500. The trial Magistrate refused to give the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without complying with Section 6(2) which requires calling for a report of the Probation Officer before refusing such benefit. The Magistrate however stated his reasons for refusing to release the appellant on probation. The appeal to the High Court being summarily dismissed, the appellant came up by special leave. Held by Supreme Court after perusal of the report of Probation Officer that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the appellant, it would not be desirable to deal with her under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act. The report shows that the appellant was arrested in 1971 while moving in a local train in suspicious circumstances but she was released on a bond of good behaviour in the sum of Rs. 100. Thereafter, she was tried under Section 379, I.P.C. in connection with an incident dated 5.3.1973 but she was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. The appellant herself sated before the Probation Officer that she had committed similar theft on two or three other occasions but those thefts went undetected. Though at the relevant time the appellant was under 21 years of age this is not a proper case for applying the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act." 6. The appellant herself sated before the Probation Officer that she had committed similar theft on two or three other occasions but those thefts went undetected. Though at the relevant time the appellant was under 21 years of age this is not a proper case for applying the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act." 6. The learned counsel lastly prayed to the Court that the appellate Court has not considered this judgment at the time of deciding the appeal.7. Per contra, Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Anoop Dhand.8. For the reasons mentioned here in above, I quashed and set aside the order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2003 but on the same time I direct to the appellate Court to rehear the appeal and decide the matter in the light of the judgment mentioned hereinabove within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.This petition is disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of. *******