JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 30.09.2011, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barsar, in Criminal Case No. 73-II-2010, titled as State vs. Suresh Kumar, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. vide judgment dated 15.11.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2011 and RBT No. 20 of 2013, titled as Suresh Kumar vs. State of H.P. through Public Prosecutor Hamirpur (H.P.), the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is seen that trial Court has convicted the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in relation to offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amount of fine already stands deposited in the trial Court. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions does not challenge judgment of conviction on merits. However, it is argued that keeping in view the fact that offence took place in the year 2009, as also the fact that during trial petitioner has maintained good conduct, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, be accorded to him. Petitioner has reformed himself and there is no possibility of his committing any crime in future. Learned counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in State of H.P. vs. Devinder Kumar and Others, Latest HLJ 2012(1) HP 11. 5. Report of the District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer, District Bilaspur, H.P. was called by this Court. Petitioner has been maintaining good moral character and conduct. Report of the Probation Officer reveals that another FIR No. 38/06 was also registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Kangra. Learned counsel has also placed on record judgment dated 01.03.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 29/3 of 2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar and another, evidencing the fact that in relation to the very same FIR petitioner stands acquitted. Learned counsel submits that no appeal has been preferred by the State against such judgment of acquittal. 6. Learned counsel submits that no appeal has been preferred by the State against such judgment of acquittal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a lenient view be taken considering the fact that appellant is a young man aged 35 years; has two young children and aged parents to support. Also there is no earning member in the family. 7. No doubt, the nature of offence is grave but then petitioner has reformed himself. He has maintained good conduct. This is his first offence. Apparently, he has not violated any law thereafter. Even the Probation Officer has shown satisfaction of his behaviour. 8. Hence, considering the facts and taking a holistic view of the matter, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if petitioner (Suresh Kumar) son of Shri Beli Ram, resident of Village Churadi, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. is accorded benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner shall furnish bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, for a period of one year, with regard to his conduct, maintaining peace and good behaviour, to the satisfaction of trial Court. Needful be positively done within a period of four weeks. It is clarified that if petitioner fails to maintain good conduct and behaviour for one year, his bond shall stand forfeited and the sentence in question, so awarded by the trial Court, shall become operative, which he shall serve. 9. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending applications, if any. Revision allowed.