JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. 1. This revision is directed against order dated 10-4-1985 recorded by Sri N. C. Jain, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1984 by which order dated 21-5-1984 recorded by Sri V. K. Tyagi, learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No. 90 of 1984 was affirmed. 2. Learned Magistrate convicted the revisionists under Sections 147/323 IPC. Each revisionist was sentenced to six months S.I. under Section 147 IPC and three months S. I. under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. All the revisionists are own brothers. Scene of occurrence lay in front of the house of informant Gulam Sarwar PW 1 as shown in site plan Ext. Ka-1 drawn by investigator Sri Udai Vir Singh PW 4. There is a platform in front of the house of informant. It was on 12-8-1979, at about 8.00 a. m. that all the revisionists reached the platform and began to dig foundation to encroach over the same. They were armed with lathi; Abdul Hamid possessed a spade also. 3. Informant obstructed the said encroachment; Abdul Hamid inflicted blows with the spade on the head of informant who fell down. His co-accused also dealt blows with lathis etc. Occurrence was witnessed by Mohd. Akbar PW 2, Kunwar Sadiq AH PW 3 and others who intervened. It was on their intervention that the accused went away. 4. First information report Ext. Ka-3 was lodged by informant at police station just after the occurrence at 8.45 a. m. The report was taken down under Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a non-cognizable offence. Injuries were examined at 10.15 a. m. on the same day by Dr. S. R. P. Misra PW 5 who detected six injuries on the person of informant as detailed in injury report Ext. Ka-5. Two lacerared wounds were detected on the head of injured. Duration of the injuries coincided with the time of occurrence. 5. Prosecution examined Gulam Sarwar PW 1, Mohd. Akbar PW 2, and Sadiq Ali PW 3 about the occurrence. They supported the prosecution version to the full. 6. In their statements, accused denied their participation in the occurrence and alleged their implication to ill-will. Duration of the injuries coincided with the time of occurrence. 5. Prosecution examined Gulam Sarwar PW 1, Mohd. Akbar PW 2, and Sadiq Ali PW 3 about the occurrence. They supported the prosecution version to the full. 6. In their statements, accused denied their participation in the occurrence and alleged their implication to ill-will. In defence, the accused filed copy of decree in Suit No. 540 of 1978, Smt. Haroon v. Abdul Aziz and others, and copy of decree and order in appeal. The appeal was dismissed in default. All these documents were filed to show an earlier litigation amongst the parties in connection with a dispute about the land. 7. Both the courts below believed the prosecution version and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The First contention put forward on behalf of revisionists was that Section 147 IPC was not attracted in this case as general diary entry simply mentioned the participation by four accused in the occurrence. Since the number of accused was less than five, as the offence of rioting under Section 147 IPC was not made out. In the same connection, it was further pointed out that particular role of each rioter was not specified in the first information report, names of witnesses were also not given in the FIR. I have carefully considered these submissions. It is well established that a report for non cognizable offence is not taken down verbatim but is simply a gist of version given by informant. It is also well known that usually the police constable recording the FIR tries to minimise the offence to a non cognizable offences. A perusal of the FIR as well as G. D. entry shows that these accused were nominated in the report. The time, venue of occurrence and the assault was laid therein. Investigator found the observation of the clerk constable that number of assailants would not have been more than four as uncalled for and he sent up all the revisionists in the case after investigation. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid observation of clerk constable does not carry much weight, as was rightly observed by learned courts below. 9. The next contention was that the role of Abdul Hamid was not particularised in first information report. A spade was not assigned to him by Mohd. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid observation of clerk constable does not carry much weight, as was rightly observed by learned courts below. 9. The next contention was that the role of Abdul Hamid was not particularised in first information report. A spade was not assigned to him by Mohd. Akbar and Sadiq Ali although Gulam Sarwar ascribed such role only to Abdul Hamid. Such inconsistency is again a painter to the falsity of the prosecution version. If a spade was there, it could have been normally used by Abdul Hamid and could have caused incised wound but incised wound was not there according to the medical report. This contention was also considered by courts below who observed that injured could not see the weapon which struck him on his head on account of sudden assault. On account of the head injury, he fell down instantaneously. PWs 2 and 3 could have been in a better position to see the assault. Obviously the foundation could not have been dug without a spade. Learned lower appellate court rightly pointed out that while dealing below with spade, it could have been used from reverse side and blows could have been dealt by handle of the spade. Moreover, It Is not for the revising court to go into such factual probe when there is nothing improbable in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. 10. The next contention was that benefit of First Offenders' Probation Act (Act No. 20 of 1958) should have been extended to the revisionists. No special reasons were given by the courts below for not extending the benefit of the said Act to the revisionists. In this connection, it was pointed out that Abdul Hamid was aged about 26 years, Munshi Khan aged about 60 years, Nazir Ahmad was aged about 22 years, Wahid Khan 26 years and Bhura Khan 35 years. The court should extend the benefit of the said Act to the revisionists. It appears that this contention was not raised before the learned lower appellate court but was raised before the trial court who considered the circumstances of the case and found that it was not a fit case to -extend the benefit of the aforesaid Act to the revisionists. Obviously, First Offenders' Probation Act 20 of 1958 is a piece of beneficient legislation applicable to first offenders. Obviously, First Offenders' Probation Act 20 of 1958 is a piece of beneficient legislation applicable to first offenders. Under the Act, the first offenders falls in two categories. Firstly, those above the age of twenty one years and secondly, those under the age of twenty one years. The offences are also placed under two categories. Firstly, the offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years and above and secondly, the offence punishable with imprisonment below seven years. It is imperative to extend the benefit of said Act to the offenders below twenty one years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years unless the court gives any special reason Us to why the benefit of that Act is not being extended to such offender below 21 years. Such benefit should be extended to that offender. In the instant case, none of the revisionists-accused is below twenty one years although the offences, under which the conviction was recorded, are punishable with imprisonment for a period less than seven years. 11. While extending the benefit of aforesaid Act, the discretion of the court has to be exercised having regard to the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the age, character and antecedents of the offender. Such exercise of discretion needs a sense of responsibility. In the instant case, it is obvious that the venue of occurrence lay in front of the house of informant and happened to be his platform which was being encroached by revisionists on that morning without any provocation. The accused in their statements, never claimed any right of defence of property in exercise of which they could have gone all the way long upto venue of occurrence armed with lathis and spade etc. Such violent display of might is seriously noticeable. Under such circumstances, I do not find that the courts below committed any error in not extending the benefit of said Act to the revisionists. 12. There was also a prayer to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. It appears that during the trial and after conviction by appellate court, the total period of detention and imprisonment already under gone by each revisionists was 27 days only. 12. There was also a prayer to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. It appears that during the trial and after conviction by appellate court, the total period of detention and imprisonment already under gone by each revisionists was 27 days only. Having regard to the role played during the occurrence by all the revisionists, except Abdul Hamid, while upholding their conviction under Sections 147/323 IPC, their sentences under each count, are reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. They need not surrender to their bonds which are discharged. As regards Abdul Hamid who dealt heavy blow with hand spade on head it would be misplaced leniency to reduce his sentence to that extent and so the sentence of Abdul Hamid under both counts are affirmed. Let him Surrender to his bonds forthwith to serve out the remainder sentence of five months and three days. Interim order dated 16-4-1985 is vacated therewith. 13. Thus, the revision is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. 14. Send the record to the Court of Magistrate concerned at the earliest.