Short Note : 1. On a complaint instituted by petitioner against four persons, the trial Magistrate issued process against the two non-applicants and one Simbru. The trial Magistrate found non-applicant Maltha guilty for an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Considering that his age is about 60 years and this was his first offence Maltha was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 only, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. So far as non-applicant Harju is concerned he was convicted for an offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On a consideration that this was his first offence and the fracture did not cause any permanent damage, Harju was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 600 in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial Magistrate further directed that out of the amount of fine an amount of Rs. 500 be paid as compensation to the complainant. Simbru was acquitted of the charge. The two non-applicants preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge upheld the convictions of both the non-applicants. However, on a consideration of the circumstances he instead sentencing them directed under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they be released on entering into a bond of Rs. 1,000 each with one surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence for a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Held : The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the sentences as had been awarded by the trial Magistrate to the two non-applicants. The Sessions Judge has given reasons for giving the two non-applicants the benefit under section 360 of the Code. The reasons given by him could neither be said to be illegal nor wrong. It was not disputed that in compliance to the order of the Sessions Judge each of the two non-applicants had executed the bond and furnished surety. The judgment was delivered by the Sessions Judge on 20-12-76. More than a year and a half has already passed since then. The offence is of January, 1974. The incident took place on a trifling matter. The judgment was delivered by the Sessions Judge on 20-12-76. More than a year and a half has already passed since then. The offence is of January, 1974. The incident took place on a trifling matter. On a consideration of all the circumstances I feel that there are no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the Sessions Judge. Revision dismissed.