JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral):- The present revision petition has been filed by Rajender son of Harkesh, complainant of this case against judgment dated 12.8.2009 passed by appellate Court, i.e., learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which appeal filed by the present revision-petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat, vide which respondent-accused being juvenile was held guilty of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the victim and hence held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 377 IPC and however, taking into consideration the report of District Probation Officer, directed for releasing him on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount for commission of offence punishable under Section 377 IPC, was dismissed. 2. Only point urged by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner is that victim is a ten years old child hence learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat, should have dealt with the accused sternly. 3. Law is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction, courts can interfere only if judgments rendered by the Courts below are patently illegal or if any material irregularity has been committed by them. 4. Revisional court can interfere only when there is glaring defect in procedure or manifest error on law point, where learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, where material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked, or where any glaring feature is brought to the notice of High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of the justice. This Court is not to reappraise and re-appreciate the evidence. 5. In the present case so far as judgment of conviction is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the respondent-accused, even before the appellate Court. So far as order of sentence is concerned, the order passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat, releasing the respondent-accused on probation has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 6. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) deals with the order that may be passed by the Board regarding juvenile, which reads as under:- “15. 6. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) deals with the order that may be passed by the Board regarding juvenile, which reads as under:- “15. Order that may be passed regarding juvenile.- (1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,- (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counselling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile; (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counselling and similar activities; (c ) order the juvenile to perform community service; (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money: (e ) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit.] (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a probation officer or a recognized voluntary organization or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (3) Where an order under clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) is made, the Board may, if it is of opinion that in the interest of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in addition make an order that the juvenile in conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not exceeding three years as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law: Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the Board on receiving a report from the probation officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law has not been of good behaviour during the period of supervision or that the fit institution under whose care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behaviour and wellbeing of the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be sent to a special home. (4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section(3), explain to the juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, under whose care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer.” 7. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat, called for the report from District Probation Officer regarding conduct and behaviour of the respondent-juvenile- Sunil. District Probation Officer visited the native village of juvenile and recorded statements of villagers. He found that juvenile belongs to economically weaker section of the society. He is vegetable seller. His family has no source of income. Hence, District Probation Officer on the basis of report of the Panchayat expressed opinion that immaturity and lack of experience might have prompted the juvenile to commit the offence. Hence, he was of the opinion that he should be reformed and hence recommended his release on probation for good conduct. His family has no source of income. Hence, District Probation Officer on the basis of report of the Panchayat expressed opinion that immaturity and lack of experience might have prompted the juvenile to commit the offence. Hence, he was of the opinion that he should be reformed and hence recommended his release on probation for good conduct. Board accepted the report of District Probation Officer and extended the concession of probation to the juvenile under law. 8. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by Principal Magistrate and as affirmed by learned Appellate Court is, in any way, illegal or perverse. 9. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the respondent-accused be directed to pay compensation to the victim, as there is no such provision under 15 of the Act. 10. There is no merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. —————