A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant Revisional Application by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) under section 401, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortened into Code) is directed against judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, at Alipore in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1988 before him, affirming the judgment and order dated 17th March, 1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Basirhat in G. R. Case No. 677 of 1980/t. R. No. 422 of 1980 before him, on the grounds made out therein. ( 2 ) THE said case before the learned Magistrate arose out of an F. I. R. lodged on 28. 4. 1980 by the informant-Bijoylal Sikder alleging, inter alia, that the father of the accused had purchased the adjacent northern land, and had constructed house thereon. The informant had constructed a boundary wall of his house to the contiguous south in the year 1966. A boundary dispute arose between the parties about 3/4 months back for which a survey was undertaken at their instance; but to no effect. On 27th April, 1980, the accused, along with others, had threatened the informant and had asked him to demolish the boundary wall raised by him for which a diary had been lodged at the Basirhat P. S. , being G. D. Entry No. 1797 dated 27. 4. 80. On the following day, 28. 4. 80, at about 7. 30 A. M. , the accused, along with 7/8 others, had come to the house of the informant and had demolished the boundary wall on the north-western corner, causing loss of about Rs. 300/400 to him. ( 3 ) ON the aforesaid allegations the accused had been prosecuted for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) ON trial, the learned Magistrate had found the accused guilty to the aforesaid offence and had accordingly convicted thereunder; and had placed him under probation Officer for one year, if so recommended, in terms of the judgment and order rendered by him on 17th March, 1988. ( 4 ) ON trial, the learned Magistrate had found the accused guilty to the aforesaid offence and had accordingly convicted thereunder; and had placed him under probation Officer for one year, if so recommended, in terms of the judgment and order rendered by him on 17th March, 1988. ( 5 ) ON appeal being preferred against the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the learned Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, at Alipore had dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 4th March, 1989 for the reasons recorded therein, confirming the judgment and order of conviction of the learned Magistrate in the relevant case. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused has moved this Court in Revision thereagainst on the grounds made out in the Revisional Application. ( 7 ) THE record shows that the learned Magistrate had found the accused guilty to the alleged offence upon consideration of the evidence presented by the prosecuted during the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, had found nothing to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, for the reasons recorded at length, upon consideration of the evidence on record and the statement made by the accused during his examination under section 313 of the Code. The learned Judge has noted the apparent inconsistency in the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code during his examination stating that there was no boundary wall at the locale, and at the same time stating in the same breath, to the contrary, that the informant, without caring for the survey of the Amin, had raised a wall the locale, which could scarcely be reconciled, giving the clearest and conclusive indication that he was not telling the truth ; and the defence sought to be taken by him was nothing but false. The concurrent finding of fact-guilt of the accused by the courts below could hardly be assailed by this Revisional Application. It is not for the Revisional Court to enter into re-appraisal of evidence on record for deciding whether the courts below had erred in finding the accused guilty to the alleged offence. True it is, the terms of section 401 of the Code are wide enough to permit interference with findings of facts. It is not for the Revisional Court to enter into re-appraisal of evidence on record for deciding whether the courts below had erred in finding the accused guilty to the alleged offence. True it is, the terms of section 401 of the Code are wide enough to permit interference with findings of facts. But a long standing practice has grown up to confine the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction only to questions of law. Yet, the High Court does interfere with findings of facts "where there are very exceptional grounds for its interference. . . . . . . . . . in the interests of justice," or where there are such exceptional grounds, e. g. a mis-statement of evidence by the lower court, or a misconstruction or misreading of documentary evidence, or the placing by that court of the onus of proof on the accused contrary to the law of evidence, or to prevent a gross and palpable failure of justice, or where the finding of fact depends on a correct interpretation of law, or where the lower courts have approached the case from a wrong point of view, and the evidence produced has not received due consideration, or where the findings of fact are not based on evidence on record and are proved to be wrong from the record itself, or where the judgment of the lower court is palpably wrong, or where the case appears to be doubtful against the accused and the benefit of doubt has not been given. But none of the aforesaid circumstances could be shown here justifying interference with the findings of facts of the courts below. And, in view of the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial and the infirmity, inconsistency and weakness of the defence taken by the accused, while examined under section 313 of the Code, as discussed above, there could be little ground for interfering with the findings of facts of the courts below. Upon the premises above, the Revisional Application is clearly liable to fail, as it should. Realising the difficulty somewhat tardily, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused had submitted during the hearing that the accused has since joined the State Civil Service, and is now holding a responsible post. Upon the premises above, the Revisional Application is clearly liable to fail, as it should. Realising the difficulty somewhat tardily, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused had submitted during the hearing that the accused has since joined the State Civil Service, and is now holding a responsible post. The order passed by the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing him (accused) under the Probation Officer is likely to affect his Service. A prayer was accordingly made by way of mercy for passing appropriate order so that the service career of the accused may not be adversely affected, which had not been seriously opposed by the learned Advocate for the opposite party-State of West Bengal. The relevant order dated 17-3-88 passed by the learned Magistrate directing the accused to be placed on probation, on the face of it, also appears to suffer from technical error for which the same could neither be sustained for the reasons I shall presently indicate. ( 8 ) THE accused, as already noted above, has been found guilty for having committed an offence punishable under section 427, I. P. C. , punishable with imprisonment for two years, or fine or both. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate had directed him to be placed under the Probation Officer for one year, presumably under the provisions of section 360 of the Code, read with section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter shortened into Act ). The learned Magistrate by his aforesaid relevant order dated 17. 3. 88 had placed the accused under the Probation Officer for one year, it so recommended; and had also called for a report from the District Probation Officer, fixing 6. 6. 88 for the purpose. With the said order, as it is, the accused had been placed under the Probation Officer for one year (if so recommended), awaiting receipt of report from the Probation Officer in terms thereof. But in terms of subsection (2) of section 4 of the aforesaid Act it is obligatory for a court to take into consideration the report of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to a case before making any order in terms of sub-section (1) thereof. But in terms of subsection (2) of section 4 of the aforesaid Act it is obligatory for a court to take into consideration the report of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to a case before making any order in terms of sub-section (1) thereof. But the learned Magistrate, unhappily, had passed the order placing the accused on probation for one year before taking into consideration the report of the Probation Officer concerned, as called for by him. He clearly, therefore, appears to have placed the cart before the horse while passing the aforesaid order, as he did. The order, to that extent, could hardly be sustained as such. And, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, absence of any proof of previous conviction, and the character of the accused, in the absence of any proof of previous conviction and adverse antecedents, it does not seem to be a fit case in which he should be sentenced to any punishment therefor. As already indicated above, it had been submitted on behalf of the accused that he has since joined the State Civil Service and is presently holding a responsible position. There must have been police verification before he could have been appointed to the said service. The very fact that he has been appointed to the said service would at once indicate that nothing adverse was found against him on Verification, and that he had no such antecedents rendering him ineligible for the said Service. His character cannot, therefore, be said to be bad as such. In the absence of any proof of any previous conviction, the offence in question must be deemed to be the first offence committed by the accused. And, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in the background of admitted boundary dispute between the parties, the nature of the offence involving breaking of a portion of the boundary wall, and the character of the accused, which has not been found to be bad, it would not, to my judgment, be just and proper to sentence him to any punishment or release him on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the aforesaid Act which is likely to adversely affect and mar his service career. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ends of justice would be fully met by releasing him after admonition. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ends of justice would be fully met by releasing him after admonition. The relevant orders passed by the courts below should, accordingly, be modified. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussions above, the petitioner-accused, who is present before the Court, as directed, be released on due admonition. He shall hereafter guard against the recurrence of any such incident in future, and shall conduct himself as a law abiding citizen and in a manner worthy of his official position and responsibility. The Revisional Application be, accordingly, disposed of. The relevant orders of the courts below stand accordingly modified. Let the lower court record, called for, be sent down to the court below forthwith. Order modified.