JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.2.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 15/1992 whereby he convicted the accused appellant Manohar Singh for the offence under Sections 325, 452, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under: Under Section 325 I.P.C. : 18 months' R.I. with fine of Rs. 3,000/- Under Section 452 I.P.C. : 6 months' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 324 I.P.C. : 6 months' R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- Under Section 323 I.P.C. : 1 month's R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo 5 months; 1 month; two months and 1 month R.I. for the aforesaid offences respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.2.1992, Prithvi Singh submitted a written report at Police Station, Sumerpur mentioning therein that on that day at about 3.30 P.M. accused appellant Manohar Singh and his brother-in-law attacked upon his real elder brother Bhanwar Lal. Accused appellant Manohar Singh was having Fawdi in his hands and his brother in law was having scandal of the tractor in his hand. Upon that the police registered F.I.R. No. 34/1992 for the offence under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, from where the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant Manohar Singh for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 450 and 452 I.P.C., but against co-accused Ranjeet Singh for the offence under Sections 307, 450, 452, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C., who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses before the Court below. The prosecution examined its witnesses before the Court below. The statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Court below acquitted the accused persons for the offence under Sections 307, 450 and 326 I.P.C., but convicted co-accused Ranjeet Singh for the offence under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C., but instead of sentencing him, gave him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and he was released under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders' Act and convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 325, 452, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated here-in-above vide judgment dated 22.2.1994. Against the said judgment dated 22.2.1994, the aforesaid appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that there are cross F.I.R's. in between both the parties, out of which F.I.R. No. 36/1992 was lodged by the accused appellant against the complainant party and F.I.R. No. 34/1992 had been lodged against the appellant and in the cross F.I.R., the accused have been charge sheeted; one of the co-accused Ranjeet Singh has been released on probation and benefit of Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders' Act has been given to him, in the same manner, the accused appellant Manohar Singh should also be given the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offender's Act in addition to the benefit of Section 12 of Probation of Offenders' Act on the count that accused appellant is a Government Servant and he is a driver in R.S.R.T.C., he is not the habitual offender and his whole family depends upon him for livelihood; he has already remained in confinement for two months and accused appellant has also received head injury, which is lacerated wound. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that the appellant is a Government Servant; he is driver in R.S.R.T.C., his whole family depends upon him, all the offences are bailable except Section 452 I.P.C. and there is a cross case in between both the parties; one of the accused person Ranjeet Singh has been given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act and accused appellant has also received the head injury, which is lacerated wound, the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed; (ii) The conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the trial Court is maintained; (iii) The appellant is given the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act and it is ordered that lie shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) with two sureties of T 12,500/- (Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Rupees) each before the Court concerned for keeping the peace and be of good behaviour for two years and that he will not commit the offence of which he is accused during the period of probation. (iv) The appellant is also extended the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, so that the judgment passed by the Court below will not come in the way of service career of the appellant. (v) The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to submit fresh bail bonds before the trial Court, as mentioned above, for keeping peace and be of good behaviour within a period of three months from today, as prayed by learned counsel for the appellant. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated herein-above.Appeal disposed of. *******