1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.415/1986. : : Noor Mohd. & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan. : : Date of Order 1.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.V.S.Gurjar for the appellants. Mr.Shyam Arya, P.P., for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred by the accused- appellants against the judgment dated 10.9.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby they were convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.100/- and it was directed that in the event of failure of appellants to pay the fine, they shall be required to further undergo simple imprisonment one month. Learned counsel for the appellants has at the outset submitted that he does not want to press the appeal in so far as the conviction part is concerned, he, however, 2 challenges the sentence part and submits that in view of provision of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act the trial Court was required to give reasons as to why benefit of probation was not extended to the accused-appellants and now since the period of 22 years have gone from the date of their conviction, this Court should extend the indulgence to the accused-appellant particularly when they have not misused the liberty granted by the Court while suspending their sentence at the time of admission of this appeal vide order dated 18.9.1986. The learned counsel argued that the appellant No.1 Noor Mohd. was 32 years old when the incident took place and appellant No.2 Babu @ Babbu was 27 years of old at that time. Both of them now have grown old enough to be 57 and 52 years respectively. The incident took place on a dispute with the neighbors and that too when the females of the two families quarreled with each other on the issue of the goat of one family entering into the house of other. The learned counsel argued that accused-appellants were young when the incident took place and now at this lapse of time it will be too harsh if they will be sent back to undergo sentence. 3 Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that in view of the nature of offence the accused-appellants are not entitled to benefit of probation. Taking into consideration the arguments aforesaid and the fact that the accused-appellants were convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC, which is not punishable by sentence but also punishable by fine alone and also the fact that at the time of incident the offence was bailable one and also taking into consideration the fact that the incident had taken place all of a sudden at the spur of the moment. It is considered appropriate that the benefit of probation is extended to the appellants more particularly when there is no report about their misusing the liberty granted to them by this Court while suspending the sentence. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part and the appellants Noor Mohammed S/o Abdul Gafoor and Babu @ Babbu S/o Amir Khan are directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each on the condition of maintaining good conduct with the surety in the like amount to the satisfaction 4 of the trial court with the stipulation that they shall maintain peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years and shall appear before the court during the aforesaid period to receive and undergo sentence as and when called and shall not indulge again in any such offence in future. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.10.