JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1996 and the present petition has been pending since 2006. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara in Criminal Appeal No. 10/05 (Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has partly been allowed and the petitioner was acquitted for the conviction for the offence under Section 420 IPC as well as under Sections 78 and 80 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 417 and under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which, the petitioner was ordered to undergo 10 days' additional imprisonment under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which, he was ordered to undergo 7 days' additional imprisonment for the offence under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 129/1997 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offenced under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and under Sections 78 and 80 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 sentencing him with six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which to further undergo 10 days' imprisonment for the offence under Section 417 IPC and one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC failing which, to further undergo 20 days' additional imprisonment and one month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing to pay further 10 days' additional imprisonment for the offence under Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and a fine of Rs. 500/- failing to pay to further undergo 5 days' imprisonment for the offence under Section 80of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 with set of Section 48 of Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit. 4. 500/- failing to pay to further undergo 5 days' imprisonment for the offence under Section 80of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 with set of Section 48 of Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 24.02.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 119/2006, and thus, he is on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case, if this Court is not inclined to acquit the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, that looking to his age, absence of criminal antecedents against him, he is entitled to be extended the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as per Section 360 Cr.P.C. "3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.-- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4." 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the learned courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the learned courts below, the 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 Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under;- "Parliament made it clear that only if the court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the nature of the offence." Thus Parliament has left it to the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion. It provided sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the court to be expedient. The word "expedient" had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament in the section so as to mean it as "apt and suitable to the end in view". In Block's Law Dictionary the word "expedient" is defined as "suitable and appropriate for accomplishment of a specified object" besides the other meaning referred to earlier. In State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri & Ors., AIR (1974) SC 2233 a three Judge Bench of this Court has considered the word "expedient''. Learned Judges have observed in paragraph 21 thus: "Again, the word 'expedient' used in this provisions, has several shades of meaning. In one dictionary sense, 'expedient' (adj.) means 'apt and suitable to the end in view', 'practical and efficient'; 'politic'; 'profitable'; 'advisable', 'fit, proper and suitable to the circumstances of the case'. In another shade, it means a device 'characterised by mere utility rather than principle conducive to special advantage rather than to what is universally right' (see Webster's New International Dictionary)." 8.1. In Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198 , while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "... In Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198 , while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh (supra), 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...." 9. This Court observes that there is no material on record that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Apart therefrom, on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit under Section 3 of the Act, more particularly, in view of the legislative intent of the Act. 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 Dalbir Singh (supra) and Mohd. Hashim (supra), deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the petitioner. 10. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner, as recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment, and directs that the petitioner shall be released, after due admonition, under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.