Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The applicant was the accused in Regular Criminal Case No.1 of 2006, which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) (Railways), Bhusawal. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant of an offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The applicant appealed to the Court of Sessions, but the Court of Sessions maintained the conviction and only reduced the sentence imposed upon the applicant, to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the order of his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the applicant has filed the present Revision before this Court. 3. Mrs. Sabahat Kazi, the learned Counsel for the applicant, in the course of hearing of the Revision Application, submitted that, she was not challenging the order of conviction, but what she was seeking was that, the applicant be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [For short, "the Act"]. Since she had made out some grounds for considering the grant of benefit of the provisions of the Act, to the applicant, it was thought fit to call for a report from the Probation Officer. Accordingly, report has been submitted by the Probation Officer. The same is taken on record. I have carefully gone through the same. 4. After his appeal was dismissed, the applicant remained in custody for a period of about 10 -12 days. 5. It appears that, after the conviction of the applicant, he had met with two accidents on two different occasions, leading to permanent disability. This submission, which was made before the Court, is supported by the report of the Probation Officer. 6. The alleged offence has taken place in the year 2005. 7. Considering that, the applicant has been unfortunate in life, having met with accidents leading to a permanent disability after his conviction, the report of the Probation Officer, the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record before he was arrested in the said case, and that, even after the said incident, the applicant is not said to have committed any other offence, it would be proper, in my opinion, that the applicant should be given the benefit of the provisions of the Act. 8. 8. In the result, the Revision Application is partly allowed. The order of conviction of the applicant, as recorded by the learned Magistrate, and as upheld by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, is maintained. However, the sentence imposed upon him is set aside. Instead of sentencing the applicant to any punishment at once, it is directed that, he be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand], without surety, for a period of 2 years, to appear and receive the sentence, when called upon during this period, and in the meantime, to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour, as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, read with Section 11 thereof. The applicant shall execute the necessary bond before the trial court, within a period of four weeks from today. 9. The Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.