JUDGMENT : (PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) [1] The present revision application is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the 9 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Sessions Court") in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2021, which inter alia, released all the accused on probation for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). [2] The brief facts resulting into filing of the present revision application are that the present applicant is the original complainant who lodged a complaint against the opponent Nos.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the opponents") vide C.R.No.108 of 2012 registered at Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506(2), 114 and 188 of the IPC. The main allegations made against the opponents were with regard to a civil land dispute between the families of the applicant and the opponents, with a stay operating in favour of the applicant - original complainant. Despite the existence of this civil proceedings, the opponents tried to take possession of the land, which led to a scuffle between the parties, resulting in filing of the First Information Report. [2.1] Pursuant to the incident and filing of the First Information Report, a charge-sheet was filed, which culminated in the registration of Criminal Case No.9165 of 2012 before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. The charge came to be framed and after recording the evidence and concluding the arguments of both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot was pleased to convict the opponents for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 114 of the IPC, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2500/- each. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, the opponents preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Rajkot being Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2021. The appellate court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, upheld the conviction but granted the benefit under Section 360 of the Code pursuant to an application preferred by the opponents. The appellate court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, upheld the conviction but granted the benefit under Section 360 of the Code pursuant to an application preferred by the opponents. Consequently, the opponents were released by the learned appellate court by allowing the application on probation of good conduct by exercising powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court granting the benefits of probation to the opponents, the complainant has preferred the present revision application. [3] Heard Mr. Kalpesh M. Pandit, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. [4] Mr. Kalpesh M. Pandit, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the learned appellate court ought to have appreciated that after adducing the evidence, the sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot was just and proper. The applicant had sustained a fracture on the hand and the offence was under Section 325, wherein the maximum punishment is prescribed 7 years. The opponents were rightly sentenced to around 3 years. Therefore, the learned appellate court could not have released the opponents by granting them the benefits of Sections 3 and 4 the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. It is further submitted by Mr. Pandit, learned advocate that the application for probation was not made at the time of conviction but was filed subsequently. It is also submitted that there was an on-going dispute between the parties, including a civil suit, and thus, a history of animosity. In view of the this, the order is bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside and the opponents are required to go sentence as given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. [5] Per contra, Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned appellate court is just and proper, as it is in accordance with the report submitted by the probation officer. The report is detailed report and findings are in favour of the opponents. In view of the this, there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned appellate court. The report is detailed report and findings are in favour of the opponents. In view of the this, there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned appellate court. [6] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through material on record as well as the impugned order, one fact is clear that the report of the probation officer clearly states that one of the accused is senior citizen and one is a female accused. The third accused, although around 40 years old and also there are no antecedents against the opponents. The report of probation officer categorically states that the conduct of the opponents is good and statements were taken from the Sarpanch as well as the labours, all of whom justified that the conduct of the opponents is good and that there are no other antecedents. In view such observation by the probation officer, the order was passed granting them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. [7] Section 360 of the Code deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct or after admonition and the section say that when any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, 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. Therefore, the Court finds that the character of the persons is good and there are no antecedents. Therefore, the Court finds that the character of the persons is good and there are no antecedents. Considering the overall circumstances, it is within the Court's purview to grant the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the report of the probation officer categorically states that the conduct of the offenders is very good and there are no other antecedents. Moreover, the conduct has been certified by the Sarpanch as well as the labours of the village. In view of the same, and in light of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 read with Section 360 of the Code, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned appellate court. [8] In view of the above, the present revision application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.