JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, Cr. PC against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No 3, Dholpur in Cr. App. No. 20/1981, dated 23rd May, 1981 by which the Addl. Secs. Judge partly accepted the judgment and set aside the conviction of the petitioner u/s 452 IPC. but maintained u/s 323 IPC the conviction recorded by the Addl. Munsiff and Judge. Magistrate No. 2, Dholpur in Cr. Case No. 332/77. 2. Petitioners is aggrieved now by bis conviction under Section 323, IPC and sentence of fine amounting to Rs. 100/-. 3. Having heard Shri V L. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at length, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is devoid of any force. The mere fact, that the story about the offence u/s 452 IPC has not been believed, is not enough to acquit the accused petitioner, under Section 323, IPC. There is cogent evidence on record corroborated by the medical evidence to prove that the complainant was beaten by the petitioner. The complainant received four injuries and he filed a complaint in the Court on the very next date of the occurrence. 4. On a careful study of the judgment of both the lower courts and the evidence, which was read over by Mr. Mathur, I am convinced that the complainants version is corroborated by the statements of PW 2 Narain Singh, PW 3 Bhagwan Singh. 5. Mr. Mathur has failed to show any perversity or serious error of law in the judgment of both the lower courts warranting interference. The sentence is only of fine and I am not persuaded to grant probation to the petitioner now in revisional jurisdiction. 6. The apprehension of Mr. Mathur, that the petitioner would loose his Government service, is misconceived and unfounded, because it is only hes a person is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, or a serious offence then the service can be terminated. The present one is a case, where the petitioner has been convinced under Section 323, IPC and sentence only to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and therefore, this will have no reflection or effect on the service conditions of the petitioner, 7. The result is, that this revision petition fails, and is, therefore, rejected.Revision dismissed. *******