JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - These four Petitioners have assailed their conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge in this revision, Originally, there were six accused persons who stood charged and were tried for having committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 149 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The learned trying Magistrate acquitted two of the accused persons of all the charges, convicted accused laxmidhar u/s 325, Indian Penal Code and convicted all the four Petitioners including Laxmidhar u/s 23, Indian Penal Code. These four Petitioners were acquitted of the remaining charges. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Laxmidhar of the charge u/s 325, Indian Penal Code, but maintained the conviction of all the accused Petitioners u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The conviction of these Petitioners for the offence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, is based upon the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4 who are the injured persons and also the medical evidence: 2. Mr. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners assails the order of the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that there is no specific finding as to who assaulted whom and in the context the charge u/s 323/149, Indian Penal code, having failed and there being no individual charge u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, the accused persons have been greatly prejudiced and, therefore, the conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. I am not in a position to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. A reading of the judgment of the learned trying magistrate as well as that of the learned Sessions Judge would reveal that P.Ws. 1 to 4 in their evidence have implicated these Petitioners of having assaulted them. The evidence of said P.Ws. 1 to 4 has already been believed by the learned trying Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the Petitioners for absence of a charge u/s 323 and further more even if they are acquitted of the charge u/s 323/149, they can be convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. Since the assaults given by the Petitioners to P.Ws. In that view of the matter no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the Petitioners for absence of a charge u/s 323 and further more even if they are acquitted of the charge u/s 323/149, they can be convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. Since the assaults given by the Petitioners to P.Ws. 1 to 4 have been believed the conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, cannot be said to be illegal. I am, therefore, inclined to uphold the conviction of the Petitioners. 3. Mr. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, then contends that the Courts below have failed to take note of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and since it is imperative for the Court to take into account the provisions of Section 360 and the Court must give specific reason why it does not want to deal with the convict u/s 360, this Court should invoke the provisions of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Neither the learned trying Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge has applied mind to the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 360, this Court can also exercise the powers conferred u/s 360. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view the provisions of Section 360 should be applied. In view of the character and antecedents of the offenders and in the circumstances in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, instead of passing any sentence against the Petitioners, I would direct that the Petitioners should be released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 500/- with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of three months during which period they shall be of good behaviour and the said bond must be executed before the learned trying Magistrate within a period of one month from today. This Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.