JUDGMENT : Arun Dev Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. SC Biswas, learned Special counsel for NF Railways. 2. The petitioner herein is a retired employee of NF Railways and has preferred the present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. assailing a judgment dated 07.02.2011 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Guwahati in CR case No. 91C/2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 145/146 of the Railways Act and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 days inasmuch as it was alleged that he was found in an intoxicated state while on duty. The further challenge is the appellate judgement dated 12.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2011 preferred by the present petitioner, whereby the judgment passed by the learned trial court was upheld. 3. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already retired from service and he never indulged during office hours except on the alleged occasion and therefore, he would not like to argue on the merit of the case as it was a concurrent finding. However, he submits that the petitioner may be granted benefit under Section 360/361 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) inasmuch as he has in the meantime, retired and his pension is also not been regularized for want of final determination of the present case. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled for benefit under Section 360/361 Cr.P.C. and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which had not been granted by both the learned Courts below. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel further submits that accused petitioner has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is first time offender. 5. Mr. SC Biswas, learned Special counsel on behalf of the NF Railways in his usual fairness submits that the petitioner had suffered in the meantime, he had retired and had also undergone bypass surgery and there is no instruction with his client as regards any criminal activities of the petitioner. 6. 5. Mr. SC Biswas, learned Special counsel on behalf of the NF Railways in his usual fairness submits that the petitioner had suffered in the meantime, he had retired and had also undergone bypass surgery and there is no instruction with his client as regards any criminal activities of the petitioner. 6. This court after perusal of the materials available on record has also not found any patent error or illegality in the judgments. Therefore, this court will now deal with the entitlement of the petitioner of the benefit under the Act, 1958. 7. It is by now well settled that Act, 1958 is a milestone in progress of modern liberal trend of reform in the field of Penology. It is the result of recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. It was also held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1981 (1) SCC 447 , that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial court should collect material necessary to award a just punishment in circumstances. It was further held that the social background and the personal factors of the crime doer are very relevant in this regard. 8. In the case of Sita Ram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principle for exercise of discretionary power under the Act and the consideration required. The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act 1958, the courts are to consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. While considering the nature of the offence, the court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. It was concluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the benefit available to the accused under section 4 of the Act, 1958 is subject to the Limitation embodied in the provision and the word ‘may’ clearly indicates that the discretion is vested with the court whether to release the offender in exercise of power under section 3/4 of the Act, 1958, having regard to the nature of the offence, the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. 9. It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such power can be exercised by the court even at the appellate or revisional stage or also by Apex Court hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 10. Now, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, let this court consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. This court after perusal of the judgment, is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge did not make any considerations under the Act, 1958, inasmuch as, such consideration is a right of the accused and duties of the courts, though modified the sentence. A court may not grant benefit in the given facts of a case, however, consideration must be given. At the same time, the learned trial Court considering that the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner being a Government servant who intoxicated himself during office hours disinclined to grant the benefit under the Act, 1958. 12. In the case in hand, the offence was committed on 05.05.2008. The nature of offence cannot also be said to be heinous in the given circumstances of the present case. It is also asserted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not committed any similar nature of offence or to say any offence prior to the incident or during pendency of this petition till date. The learned special counsel for the Railways has also submitted that he has no instruction as regards any criminal activities of the petitioner. This court also had considered that the accused petitioner has suffered for last 17 years litigating in the court and facing trial, appeal and revision. 13. The learned special counsel for the Railways has also submitted that he has no instruction as regards any criminal activities of the petitioner. This court also had considered that the accused petitioner has suffered for last 17 years litigating in the court and facing trial, appeal and revision. 13. Considering the above stated facts and without entering into the merits of the judgments impugned and considering the relevant provisions and settled propositions of law and the period lapsed from the date of incident, this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be given to the accused petitioner by this court in exercise of its revisonal power. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petitioner be given the benefit under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, it is provided that instead of sending him to jail, he should be given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with personal bond before the learned trial court i.e., the learned Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Guwahati and undertake to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of one year from today. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioners within a period of 2 months from the date of this judgment. In the given facts of the present case, this court is also of the opinion that the petitioner, be given benefit of Section 12 of the Act, 1958 and conviction should not affect his service/ pensionary benefit. 15. With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands allowed.