This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.2.1990 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dindori, District Mandla in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1989, whereby he allowed the appeal in part reducing the sentence of the applicants Nos. 1 and 4 to undergo R.I. for one month. The applicants were prosecuted for an offence under sections 147, 325 and 149 I.P.C. for having forcibly harvested and removed the crop from the land in dispute after assaulting the complainant and the members of the prosecution party, when a civil suit between the party was pending. The applicants were convicted thereunder and all of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month under section 147 I.P.C., applicants Amar Singh and Janki were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months under sections 325 and 149 I.P.C., where as rest of the applicants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month each under section 325 and 149 I.P.C.. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of applicants Nos. 1 and 4; namely, Amar Singh and Janki were reduced to R.I. for one month. Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the occurrence as alleged took place on, 18.3.1987 on which date the applicant No. 2 Baburam, applicant No. 4 Janki and applicant No. 9 Salik Ram were minor as is evident from the judgment under revision. He further contended that the judgment under revision it appears that the applicants are the first offender. Considering the circumstances of the case and sentence awarded against the applicants, the applicants deserve to he enlarged under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Reliance was placed in the case of Mohd. Aziz v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1976 SC 730 ) and in the case of Roshanali Burhanali Syed v. State of Gujrat ( AIR 1982 SC 784 (1)). There is merit in the contention of Shri Samaiya. Considering the nature of the offence and the age of the applicants and the sentence awarded the applicants deserve to he enlarged on Probation of offenders Act. In the case of Roshanali (supra) the Supreme Court has held that offender above 21 years of age also deserve to be released under section 4 (ii) of the Probation of Offenders Act and in the case of Mohd. In the case of Roshanali (supra) the Supreme Court has held that offender above 21 years of age also deserve to be released under section 4 (ii) of the Probation of Offenders Act and in the case of Mohd. Aziz (Supra) the Supreme Court has further held that the offenders who are under 21 years of age are entitled to be released under section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the instant case, now all the applicants are major and in view of the decisions referred to above, the applicants arc directed to be released under section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act keeping in view the age, antecedent and sentence of the applicant, on execution or bond of good conduct for a period of six months. The sentence awarded to the applicants are modified to this extent and in the result the revision is allowed.