Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. By the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1989 in trial No. 132/89 the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad convicted all the three petitioners under Section 144, IPC and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner No. 1 Devi Pandit was further convicted under Section 435, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. Petitioner No. 2 Naurangi Pandit was also convicted under Section 435/ 109, IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad dismissed the appeal but instead of jail imprisonment ordered the appellants to execute a bond of Rs. 2,000/- each with two sureties under Section 360, Cr PC to keep peace for a period of one year. This Court while admitting this revision application stayed the execution of bond. 3. The petitioners were prosecuted on a written report of one Hari Paswan dated 26.3.1979 to the of-ficer-in-charge of Jehanabad police station to the effect that on the same day at about 7 a.m. petitioner Devi Pandit came with his buffalow and started grazing his cucumber plants and pumpkin plants. At that time the complainant was at his house situated by the side of Pokhar. The informant went and protested and in the meantime petitioner Naurangi came and started abusing him. Then other accused came and on the order of petitioner Naurangi Pandit petitioner Devi Pandit set the thatched hut of the informant on fire, causing burning of a hut and hen. The accused persons dismantled the hut. 4. The petitioners seek to set aside the judgment of the additional Sessions Judge and claimed that they are entitled to acquittal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction of the petitioners. He has considered the evidence of material witnesses in para 5 of his judgment as extracted below : "From perusal of the judgment of the learned lower Court,it appears that the learned lower Court has based his findings on the basis of the evidence of PW 5 Baijnath Paswan, PW 6 Sheomangal Paswan, PW 7 Shivdahin Paswan, PW 8 Krishna Paswan and PW 10 Hari Narayan Paswan and the rest witnesses are either formal and tendered witnesses. Out of the above said witnesses PW 10 is the informant in this case. Out of the above said witnesses PW 10 is the informant in this case. From perusal of his evidence it appears that he has fully supported his case as made out in his written report. His evidence is that the occurrence took place about seven years ago at 7 a.m. At that time he was doing the work of Nikauni in his field adjacent to his house. In the meantime appellant Devi Pandit came there and started grazing his buffalow in his field. Thereupon he made protest. At this Devi Pandit started abusing him. Thereafter other accused persons came there and they also abused him. In the meantime, appellant No. 2 gave order to set fire to his house and on his order appellant Devi Pandit set the house on fire as a result of which the articles kept there including a hen were burnt and thereafter the accused persons demolished the entire house and threw the mud in the pond. He has further deposed that after the occurrence he went to the police station and gave his statement. He has also identified the accused persons in dock. Thus, the examination in-chief of PW 10 shows that he has fully supported the prosecution case as made out in the written statement (Ext. 3). From perusal of the record it appears that the evidence of PW 10 finds full corroboration from the evidence of PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 further shows that they have aiso got their hut near the P.O. land which is a gairmazarua plot bearing plot No. 142. From the cross-examination of PWs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 it appears that a proceeding under Section 133, Cr PC was going on between the informant and the witnesses on the one hand and the accused persons on the other hand. It further transpires from the cross-examination that the informant and the above said witnesses had caused obstacle in the smooth flow of water from the pond which gave rise to the proceeding under Section 133, Cr PC. It further transpires from the cross-examination that the informant and the above said witnesses had caused obstacle in the smooth flow of water from the pond which gave rise to the proceeding under Section 133, Cr PC. The argument of the learned advocate of the appellants is that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case due to the above mentioned proceeding under Section 133, Cr PC but, I cannot agree with the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant as there are overwhelming evidence on record in support of the prosecution case and the reference case that the informant and the witnesses had created obstruction in the flow of water from the pond for which a proceeding under Section 133, Cr PC was started between the parties fully establishes this fact that the informant had got some construction, may be illegal near the pond which created obstacle in flow of the water from the pond. Thus, the evidence on record established this fact that the informant had his house in the shape of thatched hut near the pond and therefore, I am of the view that the learned lower Court has rightly believed the evidence of the prosecution witness and found that all the appellants after forming an unlawful assembly went over the P.O. and on the order of appellant No. 2 appellant No. 1 set fire to the hut of the informant and thereafter demolished the same." 5. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken pain to go to the evidence and affirmed the conviction of the petitioners. There is no illegality in the judgment of the appellate Court. The petitioners were directed to execute a bond of Rs. 2,000/-to keep peace for a period of one year. Since the occurrence is of the year 1979, that is about 20 years back no useful purpose will be served for directing the petitioner to execute bond of Rs. 2,000/- for maintaining the peace. Accordingly, the petitioners shall not be required to execute bond because they were in custody for a few days. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.Revision disposed of accordingly.