JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and has modified the judgment dated 15.9.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar District Churu whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted non-petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sections 341,'323 and 325 I.P.C. and has sentenced him to a maximum period of six months simple imprisonment, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that while partly allowing the appeal, the learned Judge has granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act ('the Act', for short) to the non-petitioner No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.3.2002, the petitioner had lodged a written report at Police Station, Taranagar whereby he had claimed that between 9-10 A.M. while he and his brother Jamna Ram tried to board a bus, they were attacked by Juglal, Deeparam, Mahaveer, Babulal, Vinod and Subhash. According to him, Juglal struck him from behind. Consequently, he suffered injuries. On the basis of this report, a formal F.I.R. was registered under Sections 341, 324 and 325 I.P.C. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted nine documents. In order to defend themselves, defence examined six witnesses and submitted two documents. 3. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the non-petitioner No. 2 for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to three months of simple imprisonment, convicted him for offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and sentenced him to ten days simple imprisonment, convicted him for offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentence him to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed fire of Rs. 1,000/-. It further directed that in case of default thereof, the non-petitioner shall further undergo a sentence. of one month of simple imprisonment. Since non-petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.2007, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. While partly accepting the appeal and while upholding the conviction, the learned Judge directed that the benefit of the Act should be given to the non-petitioner No. 2. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. of one month of simple imprisonment. Since non-petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.2007, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. While partly accepting the appeal and while upholding the conviction, the learned Judge directed that the benefit of the Act should be given to the non-petitioner No. 2. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that probation has been given on the ground that non-petitioner No. 1 happens to be a seventy years old person. Moreover, while quashing the judgment dated 15.9.2007 while accepting the appeal, learned Judge has not directed that the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- should be paid to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, it should be applied as liberally as possible. Moreover, none of the conditions under the said Act have been-violated, as non-petitioner No. 2 has committed the crime for the first time. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the benefit of the Act to the non-petitioner No. 2. Secondly, the learned Judge has also directed that the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- be paid to the. petitioner in accordance with the judgment dated 15.9.2007. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that the Act forms of the reformative theory of punishment. The purpose of punishing an offender is not merely to incarcerate a person in the jail. The real purpose is to ensure that he reforms himself, during the term of imprisonment, and is brought back into the society as a contributory member thereof. In order to reform an offender, the Act was brought into force. The Act recognised that the conviction of an offender in minor offences is not a real threat to the society. In cases where it is his first offence, generally the benefit of the Act should be given. Undoubtedly, in the present case it is the first offence of non-petitioner No. 2. Moreover, he happens to be seventy years old person. Further he was convicted merely for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 325 I.P.C. all of which are minor in nature. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the benefit of the Act to the non-petitioner No. 2. 8. Moreover, he happens to be seventy years old person. Further he was convicted merely for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 325 I.P.C. all of which are minor in nature. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the benefit of the Act to the non-petitioner No. 2. 8. The learned Judge has also directed that compensation of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mis-placed. 9. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in judgment dated 27.4.2009. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******