JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal leave to appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, whereby the learned Magistrate while convicting the accused respondent has granted him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act ('the Act', for short). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act against the accused-respondent stating that the Floating Frame Floating Frame accused-respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him. The accused-respondent had given a Cheque, bearing NO.158882, amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. However, when the cheque was deposited, the same was dishonored. He again submitted the cheuqe with the bank on the assurance of the accused-respondent. Against the cheque was dishonored with the note "exceeds arrangement". Thereafter, the appellant sent a notice for demand of justice through his counsel to the accused respondent. 3. After hearing both the sides and after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has ordered the accused-respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant and he has given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act to the accused-respondent. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the cheque had bounced in the year 2003; it is only after a lapse of six years, the cheque amount was paid to the appellant. Secondly, the benefit of probation has been granted by the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason. Thirdly, without passing any order of sentence, the benefit of probation has been granted to the accused-respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment dated 04.01.2010. 6. Merely because the cheque amount has been returned to the appellant after a lapse of six years would not dis-entitle the accused-respondent from the benefit of probation under the Act. 7. Undoubtedly, the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. In case, the accused has committed his first offence, ordinarily the benefit of probation should be given to him. Moreover, the benefit of probation is always given after convicting the person of the offence. But instead of sentencing him to a particular term of imprisonment, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act is generally granted. 8. In case, the accused has committed his first offence, ordinarily the benefit of probation should be given to him. Moreover, the benefit of probation is always given after convicting the person of the offence. But instead of sentencing him to a particular term of imprisonment, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act is generally granted. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated o4.01.2010 clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has considered the fact that in compliance of the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by this Court, the accused respondent had deposited Rs. 50,000/- which was the cheque amount. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has directed the accused-respondent to deposit Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that this is the first offence committed by the accused-respondent. Therefore, keeping in mind the spirit of the Act, the learned Magistrate had granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. 9. While granting the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, it is not incumbent on the learned Magistrate to first sentence the person to a particular term of imprisonment. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are without any merit. 10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This criminal leave to appeal being devoid of any merit; it, is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to Appeal Dismissed. *******