JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Aggrieved against that part of the impugned judgement, vide which the respondent-accused Vijay Kumar was ordered to be released on probation, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant revision petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the original complainant-author of FIR No.122 dated 26.6.2001 under Section 323/325/34 IPC, Police Station Nurmahal. On 23.6.2001, one MLR pertaining to complainant Sukhdev Kumar was received, on which ASI Bhagwan Dass reached at Civil Hospital Nurmahal. He sought the opinion of the doctor, who declared the injured fit to make the statement, but the injured had gone to Nakodar for X-ray examination. On 24.6.2001, ASI Bhagwan Dass again reached at Civil Hospital Nurmahal and recorded the statement of injured Sukhdev Kumar to the effect that he was resident of Village Kot Badal Khan and was a shopkeeper. On 23.6.2001, at about 5.30 AM, he went to the fields for easing himself and thereafter when he was coming back, he again felt some pain in his abdomen. He again went to the fields and when he was sitting in the fields of Vijay Kumar son of Kishan Dev to ease himself, then Vijay Kumar and his wife Kanta Rani started giving brick bat blows to him. He sustained multiple injuries on his face, back and right wrist. The motive behind causing of injuries was that he was sitting for easing himself in the fields of Vijay Kumar and he was empty handed. Karam Chand son of Puran Chand (PW-2) came to his rescue as he happened to be a passer by at the place of occurrence. 3. The statement of Sukhdev Kumar-complainant was recorded and a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of a case. On the basis of the ruqa, formal FIR was registered. Thereafter on 24.6.2001, X-ray report pertaining to the injured was received, which disclosed that injured suffered one fracture. Hence, offence under Section 325 IPC was added. Investigation was carried out and accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. These were PW-1 Sukhdev Kumar-complainant-petitioner, PW-2 Karam Chand, PW-3 Dr.Balbir Singh, PW4, Dr. Asha Kumar, PW-5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW-6 ASI Bhagwan Dass and PW-7 ASI Jagan Nath. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. These were PW-1 Sukhdev Kumar-complainant-petitioner, PW-2 Karam Chand, PW-3 Dr.Balbir Singh, PW4, Dr. Asha Kumar, PW-5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW-6 ASI Bhagwan Dass and PW-7 ASI Jagan Nath. The prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the occurrence, pleaded not guilty, but did not lead any defence evidence. 5. After hearing the parties and examining the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court acquitted Kanta Rani accused. However, respondent Vijay Kumar was convicted vide judgement dated 11.12.2007. The convict was sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- was imposed. In default of payment of fine, the convict was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. The convict was also sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed. In default of payment of fine, the convict was ordered to undergo further sentence for seven days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the convict Vijay Kumar-respondent filed Crl. Appeal No.175 of 2007 before the learned Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide impugned judgement dated 12.4.2010, upheld the conviction but ordered the release of the convict on probation, finding him a first offender and a government employee. However, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be deposited by the convict for compensating the complainant. Accordingly, probation bonds were furnished by Vijay Kumar-respondent and were accepted by the court. Amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- was deposited. 7. Dissatisfied against this part of the impugned judgement, the complainant has approached this court by way of instant revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned lower appellate court has committed serious error of law, while releasing the respondent-convict on probation, because he had caused multiple injuries to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, failed to give any reasons while granting the benefit of probation to the respondent. Finally, he submits that the impugned part of the judgement releasing the respondent Vijay Kumar on probation was liable to be set aside by allowing the present petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, failed to give any reasons while granting the benefit of probation to the respondent. Finally, he submits that the impugned part of the judgement releasing the respondent Vijay Kumar on probation was liable to be set aside by allowing the present petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case. After giving anxious consideration to the contentions raised and also in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are without any force. 10. Admittedly, accused Vijay Kumar-respondent was the first offender and was also a government employee. Further, he has already faced the agony of criminal trial for the last more than 11 long years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned plausible reasons, while granting the benefit of probation to the respondent, which shows due application of judicious mind. The relevant observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the operative para no.19 of the impugned judgement, read as under :- “I have considered this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is nothing on record that the appellant was ever convicted or sentenced in any other case prior to this offence. He is also facing pangs of trial for the last about 9 years. Grievous injury attributed to the appellant is also on non-vital part of the body of the complainant. So, keeping in view such back ground and also that the appellant being a public servant will loose his job in case sentence part of judgement of the learned Trial Court is kept intact and further when the complainant can be well compensated by way of awarding compensation from the pocket of the appellant. I am of the opinion that one chance must be given to the appellant to reform himself. I am of the opinion that one chance must be given to the appellant to reform himself. Hence, sentence part of judgement of the learned trial court is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount with an undertaking to keep peace and tranquility for a period of six months and not commit any such offence again during this period and further to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for making payment to the complainant for sustaining such injury upto 17.4.2010, failing which the sentence part of judgement of the learned trial court shall remain intact and the appellant shall be called upon to receive the same.” 11. After considering the above part of the judgement keeping in view the given fact situation of the case, I have no hesitation to conclude that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while granting the probation to the respondent Vijay Kumar. The view taken by this court also finds support from the judgements rendered in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677 , State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and others, 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 670 (DB) and Hanuman Vs. State of Haryana, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1521] : 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 488. 12. The ratio of the judgements, noted above, is that if the court forms the opinion that it is just and expedient to release the offender on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, the offender can be released on probation, it being a beneficial piece of legislation. In the present case, the occurrence took place on a very petty issue with any conspiracy for committing the offence. Further, the object of the statute is to give a chance to the offender for reforming so that he may become a useful and responsible citizen. In fact, release of probationer on bond with or without sureties on probation of good conduct is, in nature, a preventive measure which gives to the offender an opportunity of reformation within the community itself. 13. In fact, release of probationer on bond with or without sureties on probation of good conduct is, in nature, a preventive measure which gives to the offender an opportunity of reformation within the community itself. 13. It is the settled proposition of law that the revisional jurisdiction is a limited one and is to be exercised only when there is a patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement. No such manifest illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, warranting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this court. 14. No other argument has been raised. 15. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the present revision petition is without any substance and it must fail. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------