HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 676 of 2009 Reserved on 12.11.2025. Delivered on 14.11.2025. Court No. - 29 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the accused-revisionists and the learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2009 confirming the judgment and order dated 19.5.2009, passed by the learned First Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 1452 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 1995, under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur, whereby one year simple imprisonment has been awarded to each of the revisionists. 3. Sri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the accused-revisionists submits that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offender. He at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he is confining his submission in the criminal revision only with respect to the order of sentence. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists, the criminal revision is dismissed so far as it relates to the impugned judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajeet Singh, Anupam Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate Suresh Singh And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) trial court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court is hereby, upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists further submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). 6. The trial court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., while sentencing the accused- revisionists.The trial court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., or the provisions of the Act, 1958. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. 8. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise, is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act. 9. The accused-revisionists have statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned trial court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C or provisions of the Act were not applied, then the learned trial court should have recorded reasons for the same. 10. Learned AGA, appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that CRLR No. 676 of 2009 2 the accused-revisionists is the first time offender and were not previously convicted in any other case. He further submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C, considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused- revisionists and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this criminal revision is, accordingly dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accused- revisionists. However, they are granted benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-revisionists are released on probation. The accused- revisionists shall file personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ and they shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be for one year. 12. In case of breach of any such condition, the accused-revisionists will subject themselves to undergo the sentences before the trial court as per law. The accused-revisionists shall file the bonds within a period of one month from today. 13. Let a copy of this judgment as well as the record be transmitted to the concerned trial court forthwith for necessary compliance. November 14, 2025 sfa/ CRLR No. 676 of 2009 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench