JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal revision petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur dated 21.08.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2001 whereby the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 04.06.2001 was dismissed. 2. By order dated 04.06.2001, the Judl. Magistrate, Padampur held the accused - respondents guilty for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 148, I.PC. and, instead of sentencing them to suffer imprisonment, extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Impugning the order of the trial Court to the extent it granted the benefit of probation to the accused - respondents, the State went in appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur who upheld the finding of guilt arrived at by the trial Magistrate, as noticed above. However, on the question of granting benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned lower appellate Court did not find it a fit case for interference and affirmed the order. Aggrieved by that, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the judgments impugned. 4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders of the Courts below. On appreciation of evidence, having arrived at finding of guilt against the accused - respondents under Sections 323, 324 and 148, I.PC. the trial Court, in its wisdom, thought it fit to extend the benefit of Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused - respondents. The Act is legislated for specific purpose and is meant to preserve social order. The complainant might have deep rooted grouse which may apparently be reasonable to human mind; but, law has its responsibilities and it does not inflict vengeance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court justifiably extended the benefit of probation to the accused - respondents. 5. The order impugned does not suffer from any glaring error or illegality so as to warrant interference.The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******