JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision arises out of the order dated October 29, 1969 passed by Shri K. Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Bulandshahr, convicting the applicant u /s. 353 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for six months. The applicant preferred appeal before the Session Judge, Bulandshahr. His appeal was dismissed on April 18, 1970 but the learned Sessions Judge instead of sentencing the applicant forthwith released him on probation of good conduct on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour and appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years. He was allowed ten days' time for furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial magistrate. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was appearing for B. A. Part I examination. On May 1, 1968, while the evening shift of the examinations of the applicant was going on in the hall of NREC Khurja, the invigilator Shri Allen noticed that the applicant was copying something in the answer book from the writing which was already there on his left palm. The invigilator approached the applicant and questioned him about the same. On being questioned he became arrogant and stated to the invigilator that he should not be disturbed and raised his fist towards the invigilator in anger and made threatening gestures towards him. Other invigilators present arrived there and averted the criminal assault. The one answer book which it was found that the applicant was copying from the writing on his palm taken from him and a new answer book was given to him. The invigilator made report of the incident to the Principal of the College who was the Superintendent of the examinations. This incident took place on May 1, 1968 in the evening shift of the examination which was to be held between 3 P.M. to 6 P.M. Shri Allen detected this use of unfair means and copying at about 3.50 P.M. and the report through the Principal, i.e., the Superintendent of Examinations, was handed over to the police constable on duty at the examination centre at about 6.15 P.M. at the close of the shift of the examination on that date. The applicant was also handed over to the police who took him to P. S. Khurja and a case under section 353 I.P.C. was registered against the applicant. The prosecution examined Shri Allen, the person who was the victim of the criminal assault, O.P. Gupta, G. C. Bhardwaj who had arrived at the time of the incident, P. C. Gupta is the scribe of the F.I.R. S. I. Harphool Singh who had investigaged the case. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case as the Principal and other staff of the college were maliciously disposed against him because the applicant did not wish them. The applicant examined his father Bhagmal. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued before me that it was none of the duties of Shri Allen or the other invigilators to have taken the answer book from the possession of the applicant and if they had exceeded their duties as invigilators the applicant was justified in showing some temper and that would not amount to an offence for which the applicant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The argument in my opinion is fallacious. When the applicant was found copying from the writing already existing on his left palm the invigilators had no other option but to take away that answer book which contained the copied out matter for departmental action and it may be that amongst the specific duties given to the invigilators the taking of the answer books may not be referred to but in the circumstances in which the answer book was taken it can certainly be said to be the duty of the invigilator which was inherent in him as such. It is not necessary that all the eventualities and the result thereof which are adopted and result from the use of the unfair means by the students should be contained in black and white. It is sufficient that an invigilator has been appointed and it is his foremost duty to see that no unfair means are adopted in the examination hall in answering the question papers by the examinees and if he finds such unfair means as has been adopted by the applicant, in my opinion he rightly as an invigilator took the answer book in his custody properly followed his duties as an invigilator. The right was inherent in him and no specific writing for such a purpose in the circumstances of the case was necessary. 5. It was next argued that Shri Allen was not a public servant and conviction could not have been recorded u /S. 353 IPC. In my opinion the applicant cannot claim exoneration on the ground that he did not assault or use criminal force against a public servant. Shri Allen was appointed as invigilator by the Meerut University and was definitely public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the IPC. Meerut University is a corporation established under the Act passed by the State of U.P. and Shri Allen was employed as an invigilator in the college aforesaid and at the time and date he was entrusted with the duty as an invigilator and was working as such. The point therefore, has no force. Secondly the issue was not taken up or challenged either before the trial court or the lower appellate court. Although from the evidence on record it appears that the prosecution led evidence to prove the fact of his appointment as such but from the cross-examination it does not appear that it was seriously challenged on behalf of the applicant. I see no force in the point. 6. Next it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no mention of assault or use of the criminal force in the FIR and the explanation therefore, offered on behalf of the prosecution by the witnesses, should have been rejected by the trial court as well as by the lower appellate court. I have myself gone through the FIR and in my opinion it is a brief statement of the facts and the details have been given out by the witnesses during the trial and it does not lack what is tried to be stated as absence of the material facts. This point has, therefore also no force. 7. Lastly it was argued that Shri Allen, the invigilator, who was the victim of the assault and against whom the criminal force was used had compromised the matter and a compromise application was filed. Had it been a case under section 352 IPC it could have been compounded but the courts are not bound to accord sanction to the compounding of offences which under the Code have been stated to be non-compoundable'. Had it been a case under section 352 IPC it could have been compounded but the courts are not bound to accord sanction to the compounding of offences which under the Code have been stated to be non-compoundable'. S. 353 has neither been mentioned u/sub-cl. (1) nor (2) of S. 345 Cr.P.C. That shows that the right of compounding has not been given by statute and in any eventuality such offence cannot be compounded. Learned counsel on the basis of the argument aforesaid stated that the applicant is an young man and the conviction will have serious repercussion on his bright future career which is awaiting him. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the matter but it is not a question of reduction of sentence. When the offence appears to have been committed and proved to the hilt by the prosecution the hands of the courts are tied and they cannot interfere so far as conviction is concerned. As for the sentence, in my opinion six months R.I. does not err on the side of severity. Any way, even if it be severe the lower appellate court has shown sufficient indulgence towards the applicant and no further indulgence is possible to be shown by this Court. 8. In the circumstances I see no force in this revision which is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the magistrate and upheld by the lower appellate court are maintained. The applicant should furnish the bonds as directed by the lower appellate court.