JUDGMENT C. P. Sinha, J. This application in revision is on behalf of three accused persons. All the three petitioners were convicted under section 448, Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate, who sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. In appeal, the sessions court altered their conviction to be under section 447, Indian Penal Code, but maintained the sentence. Petitioner No. 1 was further convicted under section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. His conviction and sentence under this count were maintained in appeal. So also, in the case of petitioner no. 2, who was convicted under section 335, Indian Penal Code and sentenced 'to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, in appeal both his conviction and sentence were maintained under this count. There was also a fourth accused Ganesh Tiwary, whose conviction at the Magistrate's hand was under section 448, Indian Penal Code and sentence of a fine of Rs. 100/- and later affirmed in appeal, breathed his last after that appellate judgment, before the filing of this revision. 2. This case commenced on the complaint petition of the complainant Sarju Mandal (p.w. 1) on the allegations that on 30.7.1967 at about 8 p. m., when he was sitting in his fair price shop and doing accounting along with his cousin Krishnadeo (p. w. 5), all the four accused persons came to the shop and began to abuse him. On protest being raised by Krishnadeo against their such behaviour, petitioner Sheo Prasad Tiwary assaulted him (p. w. 5) with lathi on his right shoulder causing fracture injury. At that very time, petitioner no. 1 picked up Rs. 124/ of the complainant, which was kept there and they all fled away. The injury on the person of Krishnadeo was examined by the doctor (p. w. 7) at 9.15 A. M. next day, where after this complaint was presented. The reason for these acts of the accused was said to be the shop-keeper's refuel to sell them sugar when approached because they did not belong to the panchayat for which the sugar was meant. 3. The reason for these acts of the accused was said to be the shop-keeper's refuel to sell them sugar when approached because they did not belong to the panchayat for which the sugar was meant. 3. The defence was that they have been falsely implicated in the case because the complainant had borrowed money from accused Ganesh Tiwary, which was not repaid in spite of demand and it led him to file money suit no. 62 of 1969 for its recovery. 4. Besides the complainant (p.w.1), three other witnesses (p.w.'s 2, 3 and 4) also appeared as eye witnesses of the occurrence. The injured p. w. 5 (Krishnadeo) had also deposed about the occurrence in the manner alleged, but since he was not available for his cross-examination, his evidence was expunged. P. w. 6 was of corroborative nature. After having examined their testimony, learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them, as above. Their appeal against it was dismissed, subject to the only modification of the alternation of the conviction under section 448 to be under section 447, Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. Prem Shankar Sahay appearing for the petitioners has urged that on the facts alleged no case under section 447, Indian Penal Code is made out against them because the place where they alleged to have committed the offence is a shop where any member of the public was entitled to go. I am unable to agree with this contention. The shop being of the complainant, it has to be presumed to be in his possession at the time of this occurrence. Every purchaser could go into it to make purchase and not to do such an offence. There can be no denying the fact that their such entry into the shop and indulging in that way was obviously with the intention of causing them annoyance and intimidation which has resulted in causing of grievous hurt on the cousin of the complainant, i. e., p. w. 5. In such circumstances, they could not escape their liability of being guilty under section 447, Indian Penal Code at least. 6. The other contention IS that petitioner no. 3 (Khiru Mushar) being aged about 17 years at the time of his conviction, the Magistrate should have dealt with him under the relevant provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, and released him on admonition as admissible under section 3 of this Act. 6. The other contention IS that petitioner no. 3 (Khiru Mushar) being aged about 17 years at the time of his conviction, the Magistrate should have dealt with him under the relevant provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, and released him on admonition as admissible under section 3 of this Act. No doubt, the Magistrate would have been well advised, in view of his age and the nature of the offence, to treat his case under the provisions of this Act. If he failed to do so, the appellate court could have well done so. Since, however, no substantive sentence of imprisonment has been awarded against him and he has been let off with only a fine of Rs. 100/-, I do not think, it is necessary to deal with him under this Act, now, because, that will necessarily require report from the Probation Officer and its consideration thereafter which will unnecessarily prolong the matter. For these reasons, I do not think, his case for his consideration under the Probation of Offenders Act, should be re-opened at this late stage. 7. The last point, on which Mr. Sahay has addressed this court, is regarding the question of their sentences. So far as the sentence are concerned, It consists of only a fine of Rs. 100/- against each of them under section 447, Indian Penal Code. This, I think, is quite reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The sentence of imprisonment of one month in default of this fine would appear to be against law in view of the provisions of section 33, Criminal Procedure Code read with section 65, Indian Penal Code. The sentence provided for an offence under section 447, Indian Penal Code is up to three months imprisonment or with fine extending to Rs. 500/- or with both. Accordingly, the imprisonment in default of payment of such fine should not exceed one-fourth of three months. It is, therefore, ordered that in case of default to pay this fine, the three petitioners will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three weeks each. 8. So far as the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment on petitioner no. Accordingly, the imprisonment in default of payment of such fine should not exceed one-fourth of three months. It is, therefore, ordered that in case of default to pay this fine, the three petitioners will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three weeks each. 8. So far as the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment on petitioner no. 1 (Ram Prasad Tiwary) under section 379, Indian Penal Code, it has been pointed out with reference to the relevant paper on record that, while he was in prison undergoing this sentence, the remaining portion of his imprisonment was remitted and he was released from jail during the last Mahatma Gandhi centenary. By that time, he had already done a few days in jail. In those circumstances, his sentence under this head is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. As regards the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 325, Indian Penal Code, against petitioner no. 2 (Sheo Prasad Tiwary), keeping all the facts in mind, I am inclined to think that he should not be sent to jail again and a suitable fine should serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, his sentence of imprisonment is altered to that of a fine which will consist of one hundred rupees, and in default one month's rigorous imprisonment. 10. Subject to the above modifications in the sentence of the petitioners, this revision is dismissed. Application partly allowed.