JUDGMENT S.P. Pathak, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 30.1.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 24/2005 whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution was able to prove its case, therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced under Sections 341, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the SC/ST Act').3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not liable to be set aside.4. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record.5. It is to be seen that the accused respondents were tried by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences committed by them and considering the evidence which was led in the case. In all prosecution examined nine witnesses and tendered some documents. The learned trial Court finding that as regards the charge under Section 341 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, that has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted the accused respondents of the above charge framed against them and finding that the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. proved, convicted the accused-respondents but instead of sentencing them to jail gave benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The findings of the learned trial Court is not required to be gone into for the simple reason that in relation to proving a case under the provisions of the Act, it is to be established by leading evidence that a member of Scheduled Tribe was insulted intentionally and was abused at a public place. This factum has not been established as has been found by the learned trial Court. This factum has not been established as has been found by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail, therefore, this finding of fact is not required to be gone into. As regards, finding the accused-respondents guilty under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, that has been found proved and conviction has been recorded against the respondents and have been given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The benefit of mandatory provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act is required to be given in a proper case. The learned trial Court considered the nature of offence and in the facts and circumstances of the case has given the benefit to the accused-respondents of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The discretion exercised by the learned trial Court appears to be just and proper. I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******