This is an application under Section 401 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India,1950. None appears for the petitioner. Although this is a case for outright dismissal for want of prosecution, but instead of so doing, the grounds taken up by the petitioner are being considered on merits irrespective of the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel. The Supreme Court has very recently recommended such a course of action in Bani Singh vs. State of UP, (1996) 4 SCC 720 : AIR 1996 SC 2439 . 2. The accused petitioner has been found to be guilty of offence punishable under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default or payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Nalbari in GR Case No.53/88 vide his judgment dated 10,8.90. By order dated 7.9.90, a Rule was issued and execution of sentence suspended; Thereafter this revision petition has been listed for the first time for hearing. Almost 8 years have rolled by. Section 374 CrPC provides for appeal and section 376 CrPC is by way of exception to sectien-374, it provides for cases in which no appeal lies. Sub-clause (e) of section 376 reads as follows:' “376. No appeal in petty cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any of the following cases, namely :... ... (c) where a Magistrate of the first class passes only a sentence of fine not exceeding one hundred rupees;, or” 3. In the instant case the sentence imposed is two months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. There is not a' whisper in the petition as to why an appeal could not be preferred. Dismissing this revision petition as not maintainable, would be rather unjust to the petitioner at this distance of time, almost 8 years after issuance of a Rule. Although none appears for the petitioner but to do substantive justice, instead of dismissing the petition as not maintainable, it is being considered on its merits. 4. Few basic facts may now be noted. PW 2 Md. Intaj Ali had gone to the house of Rajab along with Mainuddin, Fiddus, Sadulla, Badaruddin and Habibar to discuss the matrimonial matter. Although none appears for the petitioner but to do substantive justice, instead of dismissing the petition as not maintainable, it is being considered on its merits. 4. Few basic facts may now be noted. PW 2 Md. Intaj Ali had gone to the house of Rajab along with Mainuddin, Fiddus, Sadulla, Badaruddin and Habibar to discuss the matrimonial matter. During the course of discussion Intaj objected to the proposed marriage of Rajab's daughter with Intaj's elder brother's son nephew. It is alleged that Rajab attacked them with dagger and injured Intaj, Firdus, Sadulla. One of them, namely Intaj sustained a grievous hurt, they were first rushed to the local hospital at Mukahnua, from where Intaj was referred to the Medical College Hospital at Guwahati. Ejahar Ext. 1 was lodged at Bhanganamari Out Post. On the basis of which initially a case under section 326/ 324 IPC was registered. Apart form the eye witnesses, PW 3. Firdus Ali, PW 4 Md. Saddulla and PW 5, Daraj Ali also deposed. There is evidence of the Medical Officer, PW 6 who had examined the injured Firdus Ali, Sadulla and Intaj. While the injuries found on Sadulla and Firdus was simple in nature but as for Intaj, a penetrating wound on the left hypocondrin was found, hence the charge under section 326 IPC. The IO was examined as PW 7. Considering the eye witnesses account and the medical evidence, the trial Court found that offences under section 326 IPC was not made out. However, a case under section 324 IPC was clearly made out. Now this finding recorded by the trial Court is well supported by evidence and does not call for any interference. .There is no State appeal for enhancement of sentence. Such short term sentence as imposed by the trial Court do not serve any useful purpose, more so, in face of the fact that the offence under section 324 IPC is a compoundable one and going through the impugned judgment and the record it does not appear that the accused had any criminal antecedents so as to disentitle him from the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. There is no reference in the impugned judgment nor any indication to show that section 360 CrPC was even present to the mind of the learned Magistrate, much less actually considered in its application to the facts of the case. 5. There is no reference in the impugned judgment nor any indication to show that section 360 CrPC was even present to the mind of the learned Magistrate, much less actually considered in its application to the facts of the case. 5. This section 360 CrPC is a beneficient provision which enables the Court under certain circumstances to release the accused who has been convicted on probation of good conduct. This consideration is not reflected in the impugned judgment. The object of this section is to avoid sentencing the first offenders; to prison and the learned Magistrate should have given a thought as while imposing a short term sentence of two months as to what purpose is going to serve except stigmatising the accused-petitioners. 6. Even though an Appeal could well have been preferred in this case but as already noted above, dismissing this revision petition at such belated stage almost 8 years after filing of it and issuance of a Rule, would not be proper. It is for this reason that the suo motu power of revision is invoked in the instant case. While confirming the conviction as recorded by the trial Court, the sentence as imposed needs to be modified and as such instead of the sentence of simple imprisonment of two months, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- apart from the fine of Rs.200/- as already imposed by the trial Court and in the event of such fine being paid or deposited, the same shall be paid to the injured Intaj as compensation under section 357 CrPC. 7. With this modification in sentence, the petition is disposed. The fine to be deposited within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall have to undergo the term of imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court.