ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.37/1994 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 353 of IPC as well under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Offences for which convicted Sentence & Fine 1. Under Section 353 of IPC Three months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default in payment further undergo for two months’ SI 2. Under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Six months’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default in payment further undergo for two months’ SI 3. Both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 3. A very limited question is involved in this appeal whether the act of the appellant and the circumstances appeared in the trial would attract the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or not. It is argued that simply because the appellant is a member of general caste and the victim is a member of scheduled caste and committed an offence would not ipso facto attract the penal provisions of SC/ST Act. 4. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.02.1994, the complainant Dana Ram Meghwal who happened to be Bagwan of Municipality, Jaisalmer was assigned a work by the Executive Officer to serve a notice upon one - Brij Mohan Bhatiya and in pursuance whereof he reached at the place of the aforementioned Brij. He was not found there instead thereof the appellant found present, who was carrying construction on the spot. It was alleged that when the victim told the appellant that he has been assigned the work to serve the notice upon the said Brij, then suddenly the appellant abused him indicating his caste and intimidated him. Based on the facts mentioned above, an FIR got lodged, in which, after usual investigation, the appellant was arrested and whereof charge-sheeted for committing offence as abovementioned. After taking cognizance of the offence and framing of charges, the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer commenced the trial. Based on the facts mentioned above, an FIR got lodged, in which, after usual investigation, the appellant was arrested and whereof charge-sheeted for committing offence as abovementioned. After taking cognizance of the offence and framing of charges, the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer commenced the trial. During the course of the trial, as many as ten witnesses were produced by the prosecution to substantiate the charge and reliance was placed upon ten documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., however, he did not produce any evidence in defence. Whereafter hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court passed the judgment which is under assail before this Court. 5. A very important piece of evidence emanating after churning of the material on record in the trial that the victim was not known to the appellant when he approached to him and as such in any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the appellant knew the caste of the victim. The another fact of consideration would be that it was simply a notice sent by the executive Officer of the Municipality which was supposed to be served upon the brother of the appellant not upon him. In ordinary parlance and human conduct if the accused is not agreed to accept the notice, he may deny but herein this case axiomatically, the appellant was not the person upon whom the notice was to serve then why he would repel unnecessarily. It is not brought on record to say that how the appellant was knowing the caste of the victim so as to humiliate him. The material brought on record suggesting that he may have refused to accept the notice. In my considered view, he was not the person upon whom the notice was to serve, therefore, not obligated to accept it. As far as the question of deterring or preventing a public servant in discharge of his official duty is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence brought on record strongly suggesting about deterrence made by the appellant with the services of the victim. Since he was on duty and reached at the spot under the instructions of Superior Officer to serve the notice upon the said Brij Mohan Bhatiya where he was behaved adversely, therefore, it can be said that he was discharging his official duty but prevented by the appellant. 6. Since he was on duty and reached at the spot under the instructions of Superior Officer to serve the notice upon the said Brij Mohan Bhatiya where he was behaved adversely, therefore, it can be said that he was discharging his official duty but prevented by the appellant. 6. After meticulous examination of the evidence brought on record, this Court feels that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt to the extent the charge is concerned with the penal provisions of SC/ST Act and, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for this charge. Whilst the evidence with regard to deterrence and prevention of public servant for discharging his official duty is concerned, sufficient material has been brought on record to bring home the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in convicting him under Section 353 of IPC. 7. In view of the above, the appellant’s conviction under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act deserves to be set asided and conviction under Section 353 of IPC deserves to be maintained. 7.1 As far as the question of sentence is concerned, I am of the view that as per provisions contained under Section 361 of Cr.P.C., a criminal Court is under an obligation to ponder over on the point of extension of probation as to why the benefit cannot be given in favour of the guilty when his case falls within the criterion given under Section 360 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offender Act. A perusal of the judgment under assail revealing no such task has been undertaken by the learned Sessions Judge. Nothing is there on record to show that the appellant was ever where tried or convicted for any offence or have been indulged in criminal activities. It was his first offence which is not punishable to the imprisonment of seven years and more. Looking to the age of the appellant, his antecedents, the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the appellant, benefit of probation should be given to the appellant but this question was not taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the order under assail. The incident took place on 12.02.1994 and now 31 years have elapsed. Looking to the age of the appellant, his antecedents, the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the appellant, benefit of probation should be given to the appellant but this question was not taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the order under assail. The incident took place on 12.02.1994 and now 31 years have elapsed. At this juncture, directing the appellant to execute a bond to maintain peace for a period of six months or one year would not serve any purpose, rather would not be appropriate. Looking to the circumstances of the facts above, I am of view that the appellant had remained in custody for few days during investigation and therefore, I am of the view that the period undergone by him during trial and the period he faced the rigor of judicial proceeding for long 31 years would be sufficient enough to serve the end of justice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 9. The appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted for the offence under Section 353 of IPC. His sentence is reduced to the extent he has undergone till now. His bail bonds are cancelled. He need not surrender back. 10. The record be sent back forthwith.