JUDGMENT 1. - The instant cr. revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 4.12.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Cr. Appeal (21)6A/94 affirming the judgment dated 21.2.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Cr. Original Case No.160/88 by which both the accused petitioners were convicted and punished for following offences: Under Section 147 IPC : Sentence to 1 months RI Under Section 447 IPC : sentence a fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment to further undergo 10 days SI Under Section 332 IPC : 3 months SI. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below committed gross error while convicting the accused petitioners for the aforesaid offences because no cogent evidence is produced in the learned trial court by the prosecution. More so, a concocted story was framed by the complainant that too was outcome of FIR registered by the petitioners, therefore, both the judgments impugned deserve therefore be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even if the court comes to the conclusion that offence under Section 332, 447 and 147 IPC is committed by the petitioners, then they were entitled for benefit of probation but both the courts below failed to exercise its jurisdiction for granting benefit of probation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this court towards the judgments reported in 2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 250 : Ram Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208 : Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and submits that the petitioners may be granted benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State submits that it is a case in which the Government officials were assaulted by the petitioners when they were performing their official duty, therefore, no lenient view may be taken against them. More so, it is a case in which a serious view is to be taken against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there is no force in this appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 4. More so, it is a case in which a serious view is to be taken against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there is no force in this appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that finding given by both the courts after due trial and recording evidence of both the sides does not require any interference for the purpose of conviction for aforesaid offences, but at the same time, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that incident took place on 7.3.1988 in which a full-fledged trial was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer and ultimately convicted the accused petitioners for aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 31.3.1994 against which the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. 5. During the pendency of this appeal, the accused petitioner no.3 Shailendra Singh @ Shailu Singh died, therefore, his name was deleted. 6. Upon aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that from last 26 years, the sword of judicial proceedings is hanging upon the head of the petitioners, therefore, it is not proper to send them behind the bars at this stage, after 26 years. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction for offence under Sections 147, 447 and 332 IPC and while following the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners I deem it appropriate to grant benefit of probation to the accused petitioners. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners recorded by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court, the sentence awarded to them is hereby quashed and instead of sentencing them, the petitioners are hereby granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and it is ordered that they be released on probation of good conduct on entering their personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one sound and solvent security and the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one and half years from today and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. They shall also give undertaking that during the said period, they shall not commit any offence, which is punishable under law.Revision Partly Allowed. *******