JUDGMENT : 1. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1991 and the present revision petition has been pending since 2007. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.08/03 whereby the judgment dated 24.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur in Criminal Case No.411/91 (249/98) convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further three months’ S.I.; under Section 471 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six month’s S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further one month’s S.I. The offence under Section 420 IPC, as per the Indian Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years imprisonment; and imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC, as prescribed under Section 465 IPC is the one, which may extend to two years. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the revisionist-petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 27.11.2007 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.338/2007, and thus, he is on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the revisionist-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). “4. Bail Application No.338/2007, and thus, he is on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner however, makes a limited prayer that the revisionist-petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). “4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.— (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)… (4)… (5)... ” 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned courts below, the revisionist-petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. 8. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society.” 8.1 In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2002 Raj 945, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for determining whether benefit of this provision should be given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration... ” 8.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198 , while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “… The Court has further opined that though the discretion as been vested in the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion, yet the provision itself provides sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient...” 8.3 In Lakhvir Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 763 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, with regard to the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vis-a-vis those Acts wherein a minimum sentence of imprisonment has been prescribed by the legislature, observed as under:- “Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE v. Bahubali (1979) 2 SCC 279 . It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence Under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab ILR (1981) P & H 1 are in the same context.” 9. This Court observes that there is no material on record that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the revisionist-petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab ILR (1981) P & H 1 are in the same context.” 9. This Court observes that there is no material on record that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the revisionist-petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9.1 Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Mohan (supra), Mohd. Hashim (supra) and in Lakhvir Singh, and by this Hon’ble Court in Brij Lal (supra) deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the revisionist-petitioner. 10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 471 IPC, as recorded by the learned Courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments, and directs that the petitioner shall be released on probation, under Section 4 of the Act, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with a further undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. It is needless to say that the revisionist-petitioner will have the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.