IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT MST. MANJU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 860 OF 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 22, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2007 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under sections 376/ 511 IPC and convicted him for the offence under section 354 IPC but looking to his age he was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and he was directed to give personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years and shall not repeat such offence for two years. Date of Order : January 22, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. M.I. Beg for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Chaturvedi for the non-petitioner. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed against the order dated April 22, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2007 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under sections 376/ 511 IPC and convicted him for the offence under section 354 IPC but looking to his age he was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and he was directed to give personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years and shall not repeat such offences for two years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on April 17, 2007, when the prosecutrix went to field of Ramgopal Gurjar, the accused respondent Raju caught hold of her and tried to rape her. The complainant appeared before the Superintendent of Police Bundi on April 17, 2007 and submitted written report regarding incident. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 354, 376 read with section 511 IPC. After committal of case, the trial court framed charges against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 354, 376 read with section 511 IPC, but looking to his age he was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and he was directed to give personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years and shall not repeat such offences for two years. Mr. Beg, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that the trial court has wrongly given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent for the offence under section 354 IPC. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the case of Gurjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (suppl.) Cr. L.R. 615. On the basis of aforesaid cited case the learned counsel made a request that the accused respondent should not be released on probation in such antisocial crime. According to him prima facie case is made out against the accused respondent. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent Mr. M.K. Chaturvedi contended that the accused respondent has remained in judicial custody for 18 days during trial. He should be released for the sentence already undergone by him. He has further requested that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is only the earning male member in his family. 5. For these reasons I modify the order dated April 22, 2008 and instead granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent, he is sentenced to the period already under gone by him for offence under section 354 IPC and I also impose a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. On realisation of fine the same should be paid to the complainant petitioner. The fine should be deposited within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. If the fine is not deposited by the accused respondent within the period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the trial court is directed to proceed according to law. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/