Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these applications arise out of common judgment and order of conviction and sentence and, therefore, they are being heard together and are being disposed by common judgment. The petitioners of both these criminal revision applications have been found guilty for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. It appears that on the question of plucking mahua fruits, the petitioners were sent up for trial and they have been convicted and sentenced. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioner Hari Bhushan Dusadh of Criminal Revision No. 836 of 1993 is a Police Constable and the learned Courts below have not considered their case in the light of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have already suffered imprisonment for more than a month as against a term of two months. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment. It appears that the occurrence had taken place on 16.7.1983 and there is no charge against the petitioners that they after committing assault upon the complainant, plucked mahua fruits. It appears to be a case of petty nature and in my opinion, the provision of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I maintain conviction of the petitioners under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, I set aside the judgment and order of sentence passed against the petitioners and they are directed to be released on furnishing bonds of Rs. 2,000/- each for maintaining peace for a period of two years. 6. With the aforesaid modifications and reduction in sentence, these revision applications are dismissed.