ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Case No.54/2019 and sentenced as under. Section 341 One month's simple imprisonment Section 323 IPC Six month's simple imprisonment Section 325 IPC One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence awarded, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.169/2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, which was decided vide judgement dated 28.03.2023, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the judgement of conviction, took a lenient view and instead of sending the petitioner to jail, granted him benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as cost of proceedings. 3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid two judgements, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition under Section 397/401 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations were levelled against the petitioner, who was working as a Shiksha Sahayogi in the school. The FIR was filed on the next day of the alleged incident. Neither any weapon of offence nor the allegedly snatched money and locket have been recovered from the petitioner. There are contradictions in the statement of the complainant. The medical evidence placed on record is also not conclusive in nature. Thus, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have committed an error of law in appreciating the evidence brought on record. Thus, it is prayed impugned judgements may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charges. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are concurrent findings of the two courts of competent jurisdiction on the point of guilt of the petitioner, but despite that the appellate court has taken a lenient view and has granted the benefit of probation. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgements. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgements. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. There are concurrent finding of two courts of competent jurisdiction regarding culpability of the accused and despite there being five cases registered against the petitioner, the learned appellate court has extended the benefit of probation in favour of the petitioner. There is no ground, specially legal ground, which may require interference of this court in the case while exercising power under Section 397/401 CrPC. I find no illegality, perversity of impropriety in impugned judgements passed by the learned courts below. The revision petition is bereft of any merit and hence, the same is dismissed. 8. However, in the facts situation of the case, it is made clear that the benefit of probation given to the petitioner under Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not be taken as an impediment in his service career and as such, the same shall not adversely affect his service career.