JUDGMENT The petitioners have preferred this revision against the order of second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, dated 9.11.90, whereby they have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- each for each offence under sections 147 and 323, IPC, instead of sentence of imprisonment. The petitioners were convicted under sections 147 and 323 of I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate first class and were sentenced to two months' R.I. each with a fine of Rs. 200/- for the above offences respectively. Against the petitioners a private complaint was lodged by non-petitioner No.2 for an incident of 4.8.81 under sections 147, 148, 149,336,324 and 506 (later part) of I.P.C. The complaint was lodged after a period of about 20 days of the incident. In this revision, Shri B. Raj Sharma appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Courts below erred in law in not giving the benefit of section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the petitioners. As against the petitioners, there is nothing on record that they were ever prosecuted earlier. They are the first offenders. The petitioner No.1 is stated to be of more than 85 years of age and petitioner No.2 of 60 years whereas, the other two petitioners are stated to be of 45 years and 25 years. They are agriculturists by profession. The alleged incident occurred on the dispute of the field boundary. The petitioners have no bad antecedents. Considering the nature of the incident and the offence in the above background of circumstances, there being no impediment, they can be allowed the benefit of the provisions of section 360 of Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, directed that instead of the sentence of fine, the petitioners shall submit their personal bonds with one surety, in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, i.e., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, that they shall be of good conduct and behaviour for a period of 2 years from the date of the execution of the bonds, with a condition that in case of their failure in that regard, they shall appear before that Court for undergoing the sentence. To this extent the order of sentence passed by the appellate Court stands modified. With the abovesaid direction, the revision petition is finally disposed of.