JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners were convicted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas for various offences and their conviction has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas. Against this, they have preferred this revision. 2. The dispute in the case revolves around Khasra No. 261 (old) in village Sheelpatta. This land originally belonged to one Bhuri Singh and it is alleged that he executed an agreement to sale in favour of the accused petitioners in or about the year 1970. However, he sold this land to the complainant party in the year 1972 by a registered sale deed. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties and proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. PC were taken and/suit was filed before Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate Kishangarhbas also from where the petitioners could not get a stay order in their favour. 3. On 26.12.1974, an altercation took place between both the groups and cross FIR's were lodged by both the parties at Police Station Kot Kasim. Each party alleged that they were in possession of the field and they were cultivating it when the other party came and attacked and caused injuries. The complainant side was also tried & injuries caused by them were only bruises and abrasions hence they were convicted Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and released on probation. On the side of the present accused petitioners several persons were convicted who have come before this Court are aggrieved by their conviction and sentence and have preferred this revision. They have been convicted and sentenced as under: Name of Accused U/ss. Sentence Lal Singh 326 IPC 2 years R.I. Rs. 100/-fine 324 IPC 1 years R.I. Rs. 50/- fine 148 IPC 6 months R.I. Rs. 50/- fine 447 IPC Rs. 50/- as fine only. In default in all 2 months further R.I. Budh Ram 325 Indian Penal Code 2 years R.I. Rs. 100/- fine 323 Indian Penal Code Rs. 100/- as fine. In default 1 months R.I. 447 IPC Rs. 50/- as fine only. 147 IPC Rs. 50/-as fine only. In default 1 months R.I. Kalu 148 Indian Penal Code Rs. 100/-as fine. 147 IPC Rs. 50/-as fine. In default 1 months R.I. 4. 100/- fine 323 Indian Penal Code Rs. 100/- as fine. In default 1 months R.I. 447 IPC Rs. 50/- as fine only. 147 IPC Rs. 50/-as fine only. In default 1 months R.I. Kalu 148 Indian Penal Code Rs. 100/-as fine. 147 IPC Rs. 50/-as fine. In default 1 months R.I. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land in dispute was in their possession and they were cultivating it as possession was handed over by Bhuri Singh after execution of the agreement for sale and they acted in self- defence of person and property when the other party came to attack and obstruct them. It has been pointed out that three persons on the side of accused received injuries. Besides, the right of private defence, it has been contended that the petitioners have suffered a long trial and that the petitioner No. 1, Lal singh is a teacher in Government service and his carrier will be effected by this case. 5. I have considered the contentions and gone through the judgments of both the courts below and perused the record. In this case both the courts below have examined the theory of right of private defence as set up by the petitioners but the same was not accepted. It cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are in any manner perdures. Criminal proceedings and revenue proceedings were pending between the parties and none of the courts passed any order wherein it could be said that they accepted the petitioners' version that they were in possession of the land. When both the parties have clashed with each other than it will be held a free fight and each individual shall be liable for his own act. On this basis the role of each accused has been considered. The petitioner Lal Singh has caused a grievous injury by a 'farsa' to Surajkaur, which resulted in a fracture of matacarpal bone. Petitioner Budharam caused a grievous hurt to Devki. The petitioner Kalu was not granted the benefit of probation because he has a dangerous weapon in his hand. While the others, who were granted the benefit of probation were not in his category. However, this weapon has not been used by him but his presence has been established and his case would also fell Under Section 147 Indian Penal Code. While the others, who were granted the benefit of probation were not in his category. However, this weapon has not been used by him but his presence has been established and his case would also fell Under Section 147 Indian Penal Code. Kalu can be given the benefit of probation. 6. As far as the petitioner Lal Singh is concerned, he has remained in custody for about ten days. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that this may be taken sufficient for the offence committed by him. There has been no further altercation between the parties. It is considered proper to release him on the imprisonment already undergone by him but he shall pay Rs. 2,000/- as fine for all the offences for which he has been found guilty. He is allowed two months time to deposit the fine. Looking to the-nature of the altercation because of which, the petitioner Lal Singh has been convicted, it is considered proper to order that he would not loose his service on account of this conviction. 7. As far as petitioner Budhram is concerned, his conviction for the offence Under Sections 325, 323, 447 and 147 Indian Penal Code is maintained but he is allowed the benefit of probation. 8. In the result, this petition is partly accepted. The imprisonment imposed on petitioner Lal Singh is altered to imprisonment already undergone by him but he shall pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction of Budhram for offence Under Sections 326, 323, 447 and 147 Indian Penal Code is maintained while that of Kalu Under Section 148 and 447 is also maintained. Both Budhram and Kalu are granted benefit of probation. They shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) with one surety each to the satisfaction of the court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of a good behaviour. Two months time is allowed to them to furnish the bonds.Appeal partly allowed. *******