(1.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has not advanced any arguments on the merits of the case. The question is whether taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1977 almost about 12 years ago and there is no material on record about any previous conviction or bad antecedents of each of the accused -petitioner, the accused -petitioners should be extended benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act Under Section 4. It appears from the perusal of the statement of each of the accused -petitioner Under Section 313 Cr. PC on 6th September, 1986 i.e. after almost about 9 years of the occurrence that the age of the accused -petitioner Birbal was given as 27 years and that of Gyarsi was given as 26 years. It means that each of the accused -petitioner was below 21 years of age at the time of occurrence. So far us accused -petitioners Birbal and Gyarsi are concerned their age was not mentioned in their arrest memo. Only in the case of accused Bhagirath the SHO gave the age as 22 years but Bhagirath has been acquitted. Time and gain it has been observed that the age of the accused must be recorded because it is relevant for consideration as to whether the case of accused should be considered for giving benefit Under Section 360 Cr. PC or Probation of Offenders Act or not. The accused -petitioners have already undergone 8 days imprisonment. The occurrence took place in the year 1977 almost about 12 years ago and in these circumstances I am of the opinion that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act, 1958 should be extended to each of the accused -petitioner.
(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction it is hereby directed that each of the accused -petitioner be released on Probation on furnishing a personal -bond of Rs. 5,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to receive sentence when called upon to do so during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.