H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code. read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") is directed against the order dated 27.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 21/200 1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.9.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 52/1999, was partly allowed and instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any punishment of imprisonment, he was directed to be released under Section 4 of the Act on probation provided he furnishes a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to maintain the peace and tranquillity and not to repeat the offence for a period of three years and appear and receive the sentence when called upon to do so during such period. The Appellate Court further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 5 of the Act as prosecution expenses. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has flied the instant revision.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order Impugned as also the record of the trial Court.
(3.) At the very out set, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the order releasing him under Section 4 of the Act; however, he has confined his arguments only on the point of amount of Rs. 25,000/- directed to be paid by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act as prosecution expenses and submits that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- is disproportionately high and the petitioner, being a poor person, cannot afford to pay such a huge amount as prosecution expenses.;