JUDGMENT 1. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374, Cr.P.CG against the judgment dated 6.4.1996 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar, by which, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and passed sentence against him for one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the F.I.R. was registered against the appellant for committing offence under Section 324/307, I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but, after trial, the trial Court acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. However, the trial Court held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 324, I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a prayer was made by the appellant for granting benefit of probation which was refused by the trial Court on the ground that offence under.Section 324 I.P.C. was committed by the appellant against member of Scheduled Caste; but, for the said reason, refusal to grant benefit of probation is not proper because on the one hand the trial Court gave specific finding that no offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 is made out and, on the other hand, the same Court refused to grant benefit of probation to the appellant for alleged offence committed under Section 324 I.P.C. Therefore, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that denial of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant is totally contrary to law and as such this appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act because no other case was reported to the trial Court against the accused-appellant and, before this Court, instant appeal is pending since the year 1996 relating to the alleged offence which is said to have been committed in December 1994. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that there is not error in the judgment impugned. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment impugned and evidence on record. 6. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that there is not error in the judgment impugned. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment impugned and evidence on record. 6. In my opinion., on the one hand, the trial Court gave finding that no offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant and, on the other hand, refused to grant benefit of probation inspite of the fact that no other case was reported against the appellant which is totally bad in the eye of law. Therefore, in this appeal which is pending since 1996, I deem it appropriate to modify the order of sentence in the impugned judgment. 7. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 324, I.P.C. the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment is hereby set aside and, in place of that, the appellant is hereby granted benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act; and, it is ordered that the appellant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,9Ases, Sriganganagar to maintain peace and good conduct for one year. The appellant is granted liberty to furnish the said personal bond/undertaking within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy is order.Appeal partly allowed. *******