JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. against the judgment of conviction passed by Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Thanagazi on 18th June, 1988 convicting the petitioner Giriraj for offence under Section 323 IPC and Jagdish and Mool Chand for offences under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the case are that one Uma Shanker Bhatt, A.P.P., Thanagazi lodged a report on 18th September, 1984 at police station Thanagazi staling that when he was returning from the police station at 10.30 a.m. he found the accused persons standing on the way. Giriraj told him something thereafter the other two caught hold of him and Giriraj gave one blow on his face Om Prakash, Murari and Kailash came to his rescue. It was mentioned that he was detained for about an hour by these persons and further that at that time he was on official duty. Police, on this report, registered a case under Sections 332, 353, 341 and 323 IPC. Charges were framed only for offences under Section 332 IPC against Giriraj and under Section 332/34 IPC against the other two and also for offence under Sec-341 IPC. Prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case and accused three. It is pertinent to mention here that as early as 15th January, 1986 a compromise was filed in the case. The learned Magistrate recorded the compromise for offence under Section 341 IPC and acquitted the accused of that charge. He however, continued the case for offence under Section 332 IPC since the same was not compoundable. The learned Magistrate found that the complainant was not discharging his duties as public servant and hence offence under Session is not made out. He however, held them guilty for offence under Section 323 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-each. 3. Since no appeal lies against short sentence of fine, the petitioners have come in revision before this Court. 4. He however, held them guilty for offence under Section 323 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-each. 3. Since no appeal lies against short sentence of fine, the petitioners have come in revision before this Court. 4. I have perused the judgment of the trial Court and have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that before passing the sentence, it was obligatory for the learned Magistrate to have considered whether he should have acquitted them on the basis of the compromise filed before him or least should have given a notice to the complainant and an opportunity to the accused to have submitted the fresh compromise if they so wanted as compromise was already done in the aforesaid case, it was recorded but only for offence under Section 341 IPC and accused could not be completely acquitted as Section 332 IPC was not compound-able. Had the charge been altered even at this stage under Section 323 IPC. the learned Magistrate could not have had the choice of refusing to acquite the accused persons. Section 320 Cr P C. has two tables one is where the offences punishable are compoundable and no permission of the Court is even required while in table second there are the offences which can be compound with the permission of the Court before which the prosecution is pending. In this view of the matter, as the offence proved was only 323 IPC, the learned Magistrate was obliged to record the same However, the position is little different in the instant case as when he recorded the compromise till that time the offence alleged was not compoundable but when he passed the final judgment, he held the accused guilty of compoundable offence. Once he had come to the conclusion that it was a compoundable offence and the compromise had already been filed which is part of the record, he ought to have to considered the same. In the alternative if he was of the opinion that the earlier compromise cannot be acted upon then it was obligatory upon him to have given an opportunity to the accused for entering in to the same. Not giving an opportunity for the purpose, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has not considered the case on the point of sentence in correct perspective. Not giving an opportunity for the purpose, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has not considered the case on the point of sentence in correct perspective. He has even failed to consider the case for Probation of Offenders Act when in the circumstances of the even if he was not prepared to acquite relying on the compromise, he ought to have left the accused after admonition under Sec 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Sentencing of an accused in any case is one of the most important parts in the case and it is essential that the Court gives effect to the intention of the legislature. The learned Magistrate, in the instant case, has not assigned proper reasons as contemplated by Section 361 Cr. P.C. rather he has not even properly complied with the provisions of Section 235 Cr. P.C. Looking the case from any angle there are several errors committed by the learned Magistrate including the one that in such cases where compromise has been filed and non-compoundable offence is altered into compoundable one, the Court should alter the charge more so when it is not the minor offence or the offence with which the accused was originally charged with. 5. For the reasons stated above, I would have sent the case back but I feel it would not meet the ends of justice since remitting the case again would amount to physical mental and financial strain on the accused persons and complainant may even exploit them for the second time. Thus, to secure the ends of justice, I also exercise my inherent powers along with the revisional powers in giving effect to the compromise for the offence under Sec 323 and 333 read with Section 34 IPC and direct the acquittal of the accused petitioners in terms of compromise. 6. In the result the revision petition is allowed conviction of the accused is set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges in terms of compromise dated 15th January, 1986. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioners. *******