K.D. Shah, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for revisionist. Learned counsel for revisionist does not press the revision on merit. He, however, states that a perusal of trial courts judgment itself shows that the occurrence is of 14.6.1985 and the judgment has been given by the lower court on 14.5.1990 and again by the Sessions Judge on 24.12.1992 in the appeal. Thereafter, this revision was filed on 12.1.1993. It was argued that the sentence of the revisionist may be modified for the period already undergone. The offence is under Section 324, I.P.C. where assault is said to have been inflicted by knife. The period already undergone is insufficient. But seeing the fact that the revisionist has remained in custody for 20 days and they have also suffered a lot during the trial for continuous 7 years, therefore, it is a fit case where they should be released on probation of good conduct. Both the revisionists are real brothers. The records also shows that there was no previous history of these two revisionists.
(2.) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the circumstances in which the offence is said to have been committed I feel, it is expedient and direct that the revisionist be released on probation of good conduct and instead of sentencing them with imprisonment at once, I direct that they be released on entering bonds of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the period of one year. They are however, directed in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Send a copy of this order to C.J.M. cum-Probation Officer, Ballia to entertain bonds which may be submitted by the revisionist. The revisionist is directed to furnish the bonds within a period of three months failing which they will undergo to the sentence awarded by the trial court.
(3.) Let a copy of this order be given to the revisionist on payment of usual charges within 7 days.;