JUDGMENT Madan Mohan Lal, J. - As both these criminal revisions arise from the same judgment and are connected, hence they are taken up for disposal together. 2. Criminal Revision No. 223 of 1982 has been filed by the two accused persons against the judgment passed against them by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in criminal appeal by which he maintained the conviction of the said two persons under Section 323 I.P.C. but altered their conviction under Section 452 I.P.C. into a conviction under Section 448 I.P.C. Instead of sentencing these two revisionists to imprisonment they were granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and they were ordered to be released on furnishing personal bonds and sureties for keeping peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 3. The other revision, i.e. 797 of 1982, has been filed by the complainant, who has challenged the release of the revisionists on the aforesaid personal bonds. Her contention was that the advantage of Probation of Offender Act should not have been given to the aforesaid revisionists but instead they should have been sentenced to imprisonment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the State and have perused the record carefully. 5. This case revolves on the appreciation of facts and on facts the learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge found that the two accused persons had committed the aforesaid crime. Learned counsel for the said two accused persons has not been able to point out any material to me to show that the said finding of guilt recorded by the. learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge suffer from any illegality etc. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant on his part as well has not been able to show to me as to how the giving of benefit of the Probation of Offender Act to the said two accused persons was bad. The said two accused persons had no criminal history and no criminal antecedent. They were given a chance to reform themselves and therefore they were not sent to jail. It may not be out of place to state here that the said two accused persons had furnished the necessary bonds and sureties in this case and the period thereof has already ended. 7. They were given a chance to reform themselves and therefore they were not sent to jail. It may not be out of place to state here that the said two accused persons had furnished the necessary bonds and sureties in this case and the period thereof has already ended. 7. There is no scope for interference in this case because I do not find that the Learned Sessions Judge committed any error by giving a chance to the two accused, persons to reform themselves and, therefore, instead of sentencing them to imprisonment released them for keeping peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 8. There is no force in these revisions and therefore, both these revisions are dismissed.