1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Nisar Ahmed V/s. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1554/09 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401of Criminal Procedure Code Date of Judgment :: 11.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Ishwar Jain for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge while upholding the conviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 IPC, has granted then the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Mr. Ishwar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the reasoning given by the learned Judge for extending the benefit of probation is 2 unsustainable. According to him, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were found guilty of offence committed under Section 325 IPC. Therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of probation. Secondly, merely because it happens to be their first offence, they cannot claim to be entitled to the grant of probation under the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The Probation of Offenders Act happens to be part of the reformative theory of punishment, which aims to reform an offender to the extent that he can be brought back to the mainstream of the society, as a contributory member of the society. It is a social beneficial piece of legislation, which should be applied as liberally as possible. There is no provision under the Act which debars the grant of probation to an offender in case he were to be convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable. According to Section 3 of the Act, in case an offender has a previous conviction, then the benefit of 3 probation cannot be granted to him. Therefore, the learned Judge had rightly observed that since the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have not been convicted previously, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of probation. Hence, the grant of probation is in keeping with the true spirit of the law. In this view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. This petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/