JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Under assailment in this revision is the judgment and order dated 05.12.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Crl. A. No. 50(3)/2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 20.06.2006, passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Tinsukia in G.R. Case No. 773/2005, convicting the accused petitioner u/s 341/323/506 of the IPC and sentencing him to SI for 15 days for offence u/s 341 of the IPC, 1(one) month u/s 323 of the IPC and also 1(one) month u/s 506 of the IPC, the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and also heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 3. The accusation against the accused petitioner is that on 22.08.2005 at about 7 p.m. when the informant Sri Babul Neog of Bordoloi Nagar, Tinsukia was proceeding towards the market in his motor cycle through the Gelapukhuri road and when he arrived near a furniture house, the accused petitioner abused him in filthy language and gave fist blows to him as a result of which he sustained injuries. Written FIR was lodged and on completion of investigation charge sheet was laid. The trial court found the accused petitioner guilty under the said section which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that no offence has been committed by the accused petitioner as alleged and due to some personal grudge the case was wrongly foisted against the accused petitioner. It is also submitted that the accused is a government servant and his conviction is likely to jeopardize his service. 5. Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, submits that there has been concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below and revisional interference is uncalled for. It is a settled proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court to interfere, when there is concurrent finding of fact in its revision jurisdiction. However, the High Court can interfere only if the evidence on record was not properly appreciated or there is misreading of evidence. 6. It is a settled proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court to interfere, when there is concurrent finding of fact in its revision jurisdiction. However, the High Court can interfere only if the evidence on record was not properly appreciated or there is misreading of evidence. 6. keeping in view the above settled principles while going through the evidence of the informant who is the injured of the case it emerges that when he was proceeding towards Gelapukhuri road in his motor cycle, accused stopped him on the way and abused him and gave some fist blows to him as a result of which he sustained simple injuries. Two police personal arrived at that point of time and they took the injured to the police station where the written FIR was promptly filed and there is no reason to suspect embellishment or afterthought. The evidence of the injured is also corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor who found on examination of the injured simple injuries caused by blunt object. The evidence of the injured is also to some extent corroborated by PW 2 and PW 3 who claimed that there was some jostling between the accused and the informant. 7. The evidence of the informant which is corroborated by the doctor amply proved that the accused petitioner caused the simple injuries to the informant by giving him some fist blows. Some family dispute appears to be the cause of the assault. 8. Having regard to the submission advanced by the learned counsels and on perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and as such the same stands affirmed. 9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, Mr. B.M. Choudhuury, learned counsel submits that the accused petitioner is a government servant and his conviction is likely to jeopardize his service. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2005 and considering this benevolent provision of Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to him. 11. This is the first offence of the accused and he is a government servant and if he is sentenced to imprisonment he is likely to lose his job. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2005 and considering this benevolent provision of Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to him. 11. This is the first offence of the accused and he is a government servant and if he is sentenced to imprisonment he is likely to lose his job. The occurrence took place long back and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage. 12. Considering all aspects instead of sentencing the accused petitioner to imprisonment he is released on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, his conviction would not be a ground for his removal from his service (Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act). For ready reference Section 12 of the said Act is reproduced below:- “12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” 13. Even though the accused petitioner is released on admonition there is no legal impediment for realizing compensation from him for causing the injuries to the injured and as such he is directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 14. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order for information and necessary action.