FAIZANUDDIN. J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State has been directed against the order of acquittal of the respondents under sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Penal Code, recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baloda, in Criminal Case No. 413/79. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that on 29. 3. 1979 on the eve of the meeting of Majadoor Sahkari Samiti, the complainant Bansilal (PW. 1) was dragged by the respondents into a Waranda and abused and assaulted. Bansilal (PW. 1) made a report of the incident in consequence of which an offence was registered and the respondents were prosecuted under sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Penal Code. The respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. On evaluation of evidence, learned Magistrate found that no offence was established against any of the respondent and, therefore, acquitted them all against which this appeal has been directed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-State contended that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are perverse as there is legal evidence to bring home the guilt against the respondents. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that there is no case made out under sections 147 and 341 of the Penal Code, but an offence under section 323 of the Penal Code is definitely made out against all the respondents. ( 4 ) THE complainant Bansilal (PW 1) was medically examined by Dr. P. R. Manglani (PW 4), who as per his report (Ex. P-2) found two abrasions on the right and left elbow and a 3rd on right ankle. ( 5 ) AS regards, the complicity of the respondents there is no direct and satisfactory evidence against the Shankar Guha, respondent No. 1. But there is positive evidence against rest of the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 showing that they had assaulted Bansilal (PW 1) by a shoe and chappal which fact has been further corroborated by Gambhir Singh (PW 2) and Ballu (PW 3 ). There is nothing to discredit this part of their evidence and in these circumstances the learned Magistrate was not justified at all in holding that no offence under section 323/34 of the Penal Code was made out against the respondents Nos. 2 to 8. Relying on the evidence discussed above. I hold the respondents Nos. There is nothing to discredit this part of their evidence and in these circumstances the learned Magistrate was not justified at all in holding that no offence under section 323/34 of the Penal Code was made out against the respondents Nos. 2 to 8. Relying on the evidence discussed above. I hold the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 guilty for the offence under section 323/34 of the Penal Code and convict them accordingly. ( 6 ) THE incident had occurred as far back as 1979. The incident was also not serious in nature. The respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are also not previous convicts nor their antecedents are alleged to be bad. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are ladies. In these circumstances, I find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of the provisions of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 to 8, namely, Chander, Budhlal, Sudama. Manglibai, Dayabai, Birsho and Paltu under section 323 of the Penal Code is set aside and they are convicted under section 323/34 of the Penal Code. But instead of sentencing them all at once I direct that they be released on entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the mean-time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. .