JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.5.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Bikaner, whereby while confirming the conviction of the respondent Nos. 2 And 3 for offence under Sections 380, 457, 411 I.P.C., the learned Judge has granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act ('the Act' for short) to them. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that according to the complainant, the incident had taken place at the dead of night and theft was committed. Moreover, since the respondents happened to belong to the same the village, the benefit of probation should not have been granted to them. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 4. Undoubtedly, the Act forms part of the reformative theory of punishment. The Act recognizes the fact that the purpose of punishing an offender is to ensure that he reforms himself, during the term of imprisonment, and comes back into the mainstream of society as a contributory member. Moreover, when the Court is convinced that it is a first offence committed by the offender, when it is convinced that the offence is a minor one, when it is convinced that there is no likelihood of the offender relapsing into a criminal way of life, then the Court should grant the benefit of probation to the offender. Under the Act, there is no bar that in case the offender and complainant were to belong to the same locality, then the benefit of probation of offender should not be given. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. 5. It is, indeed, trite to state that it is common knowledge that prisons are over-crowded. Therefore, in order to ease out the congestion in the prison, one of the possible methods could be to liberally use the Act, while dealing with petty crimes. In fact, the Act is meant to be liberally applied as it is a social beneficial piece of legislation. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in judgment-dated 5.5.2011. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******