Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, is directed against the Judgment and order dated 29.04.2004 passed by Additional Session Judge, Barmer (for short the appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2000, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 27.05.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 624/1996 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the Judgment and order of appellate Court as well as of trial Court. 3. A complaint was filed by non-petitioner No. 1 Raghu Nath Singh against the petitioner on 16.08.1996 that there was some altercations between complainant and one Jumma, for which the complainant went to Police Station, Ramsar to lodge a report against Jumma. The petitioner at the relevant time was in-charge of the said police station. The petitioner got annoyed and started abusing the complainant and thereafter assaulted him with kicks and gave fists blows. At that time, PW. 2 Ratansingh and PW. 3 Indrasingh were present there and they rescued the complainant. A report to this effect was sent to Superintendent of Police, Barmer. However, since the police did not investigate the matter, complaint was filed before the Court. The trial Court recorded the statement of complainant and two witnesses namely Ratansingh and Indersingh under Section 202, CrPC, and took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 500, IPC. Before the trial Court, the complainant himself appeared as PW. 1 and produced PW. 2 Ratansingh and PW. 3 Indrasingh. The petitioner made statement under Section 313, CrPC, and examined himself as DW. 1 and produced certain documents including Exhibit D-6 a complaint filed by him against complainant Raghu Nath Singh under Section 186, IPC. The witnesses produced by the complainant have categorically stated that complainant Raghu Nath Singh went to the Police Station, Ramsar for lodging a report against Jumma, upon which, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was in-charge of police station, instead of registering the report of the complainant, started abusing and assaulting him by kicks and fists blows. The complainant was rescued by PW. 2 and PW. 3. The statements of these three witnesses are consistent. The complainant was rescued by PW. 2 and PW. 3. The statements of these three witnesses are consistent. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant succeeded in establishing the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence under Section 323, IPC, and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment, and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 500, IPC. The Judgment and order of the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any imprisonment, granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act hereinafter) and directed that the petitioner be released on probation provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety of like amount to maintain peace and tranquility and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and not to repeat the offence during such period. The petitioner was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/-as prosecution expenses. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already furnished bail bonds and deposited the amount as directed by the appellate Court. 5. On close scrutiny of the Judgment and order impugned of the Courts below and the evidence on record, in my view both the Courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the offences noticed above and accordingly convicted him. However, the appellate Court took a lenient view on the question of sentence and granted benefit of probation. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 6. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition the same is dismissed accordingly