Honble YAMIN, J.–The present revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners because they were convicted under Sec. 448 IPC by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Mandal on 10.9.92. They were given benefit under Sec. 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They were also ordered to pay cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 250/-. They preferred appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara on 4.5.98. (2). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. (3). The facts in brief are that one Nand Lal reported to P.S. Mandal on 27.6.84 that his house was situated in Lakhara Mohalla, village Mandal. On 17.6.84 his nei- ghbour Ladu Lal informed him that some demolition was being done in the house by the accused petitioners. The complainant went to his house and found that petitioners trespassed over his property, demolished a wall and opened a gate. They had also started plastering a room. It was also alleged that they had committed a theft of some articles lying in the room. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 500/-. The Police registered a case and after completion of investigation, submitted a challan under Sec. 456 and 427 IPC. The accused petitioners were tried and ultimately convicted for the offence under Sec. 448 I.P.C. This finding of guilt was confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the fin- ding of guilt recorded by both the courts below. Honble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in State of Kerala vs. Puttuman Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc. (1), has held that revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. (4). (4). The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when benefit under Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioners, the order regarding payment of cost could not be passed. He relied on two Judgments reported in State of Assam vs. Cheniram Saikia & anr. (2), and Girdhari Lal vs. State of Punjab (3), In State of Assams case (supra) the Honble Gauhati High Court has held that though Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act apply simu- ltaneously, it is for the court to decide as to whether Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act shall be applied and it shall be a judicial discretion of the Court. In Surendra Kumar vs. State of Raj. (4), the Supreme Court held that Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. (5). The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that when benefit is given to an accused under Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. the order of payment of cost cannot be passed. Bare reading of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act shows that direction to pay costs under Sec. 5(1) of Probation of Offenders Act can be given only when an offender is released under Sec. 3 or 4 of this Act. In the case in hand, since benefit of probation is given to the petitioners under Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. and not under Probation of Offenders Act, direction of payment of costs could not be given. (6). Then the question arose whether such an order could be passed under Sec. 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case. Sub-Sec. (3) provides that when a court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the court may order the accused to pay compensation. Learned Public Prosecutor agrees that granting benefit of probation under Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. is not a sentence. (7). Consequently, the trial court has no power to direct payment of costs of Rs. 250/- to complainant by the accused petitioners. Revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants under Sec. 448 IPC maintained but order directing payment of costs is set aside.