Judgment : By this Revision Application, the revision applicant questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999 whereby the learned Judge gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to the accused persons upon their executing the bond to keep peace and to be of good behaviour, provided they shall furnish surety to the extent of Rs. 10,000/each, for a period of two years. During the period of bond, the accused were directed to remain under supervision of the Probation Officer and the proposed Officer was to be intimated accordingly pursuant to the order. The appeal was accordingly disposed of. 2. Mr. S I Jagirdar, learned Advocate for the revision-applicant had challenged the impugned order on the ground that report of the Probation Officer was not called for by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before passing the impugned order. He submitted with reference to the ruling in MCD vs. State of Delhi and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 605 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have called for report from the Probation Officer before passing the impugned order as it was a condition precedent for release of the accused. 3. To counter these submissions, Mr S.V.Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 submitted that after this Revision Application was filed, there was no interim stay so as to execute the impugned order and, in fact, the respondents-accused had executed and observed the bond as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, the Revision Application became infructuous. 4. It appears that first order in this Revision Application was passed on 10.12.2007 when notice was issued to the respondents and the Revision was admitted. However, there was no interim stay to the execution of the impugned order. That being so, the application became infructuous. Even otherwise unless the order is grossly erroneous, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The accused were directed to remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer for a period of two years and Probation Officer was also directed to be intimated accordingly. That being so, the application became infructuous. Even otherwise unless the order is grossly erroneous, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The accused were directed to remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer for a period of two years and Probation Officer was also directed to be intimated accordingly. That being so, it cannot be said that there was any ignorance of the provisions of the Probation Of Officers Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, more so because in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment, the learned Judge observed thus : “14. At this juncture, learned Advocate Shri Bhate has been made aware of my findings as regards the confirmation of impugned order. Shri Bhate then would urge that in such event of holding the accused guilty and dismissing the appeal, this Court should cogitate upon the circumstances under which the offence was committed so also, the nature of offence, the antecedents of accused persons and all other relevant facts under section 360 Cr.P.C. Nowadays, the Hon'ble Summit Court and our High Court laid down that reformative theory has to be applied and the court has to see; as to whether benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act can be given to the accused persons or not. The trial Court, ignored this mandatory provision under section 361 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, this Court, within its power under section 360 Cr.P.C. may release the accused on due admonition or on the bonds to be executed under the Probation of Offenders Act. 15. In the light of this submission, when I read section 360 and 361 Cr.P.C., I found myself in agreement with the submission of Shri Bhate. The legislative policy that the benefit of probation should be liberally given is made abundant clear by provisions of Section 361 of Cr.P.C., which lays down that where an offender could have been dealt with under section 360 of the Code and has not been so dealt with, the court shall record in its judgment, special reasons for not having done so. The normal rule, therefore, is that having regard to the relevant considerations, the court should, ordinarily release an offender on probation and where the court decides against probation, it is requested to state its special reasons for doing so. The normal rule, therefore, is that having regard to the relevant considerations, the court should, ordinarily release an offender on probation and where the court decides against probation, it is requested to state its special reasons for doing so. A person, who has his first lapse in life, need not be condemned and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. He may be given a chance of reforming himself by being let off of recognizance for a certain period of duration and if he does not behave himself well within that period, he can be recalled and sentenced to suffer punishment.” 5. In view of the above thoughtful observations by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, I do not find any fault with the impugned judgment as Probation Officer was directed to be intimated and the accused were directed to remain under supervision of the Probation Officer for two years subject to their executing the bond with surety as directed. That being so, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. Revision Application is dismissed.