JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 22.6.1989 in Cr. Appeal No. 25/86 by which he set-aside the conviction of accused petitioner Shiv Kishan under Section 147 I.P.C. but maintained his conviction under Secs. -148 and 323 of I.RC. as well as conviction of other petitioners under Secs. 147 and 323 I.RC. which was recorded by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nokha vide his judgment dated 8.2.1986. Learned Sessions Judge instead of sentencing the petitioners gave them benefit of probation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. 3. Briefly stated, on 8.2.1975 Rajuram reported to Station House Officer of Nokha that there was a piece of land in Jorawarpura Nokha Mandi in the name of Ramjeewan. A patta existed in his name. Some construction was being done on the land. There was some dispute with regard to this land with Shiv Kishan. Petitioners due to this enmity at about 10.30 A.M. armed with barchhi and lathis attacked on Ramjeewan and inflicted injuries on his person. It was also mentioned in the report that the petitioners had committed house trespass. 4. Police registered a case under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 448 I.P.C. against Shiv Kishan. After investigation, petitioners were challenged Learned Magistrate framed charges under Secs. 147, 323 and 448 against all the accused petitioners and also added charge under Section 148 against Shiv Kishan. They were tried and convicted for offences under Secs. 147, 148 and 323 I.PC. but acquitted from the charge under Section 448 I.RC. by giving them benefit of doubt. They were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each by the learned Magistrate. But as stated above, on appeal they were given benefit of probation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by convicting the petitioners because the parties had compromised under Section 323 I.RC. while appeal was pending and they could not be convicted for offence under Section 323 I.RC. as it did not require any permission from the Court. He submitted that the evidence in this case is such which does not warrant conviction of the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. 7. as it did not require any permission from the Court. He submitted that the evidence in this case is such which does not warrant conviction of the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. 7. So far as revisions are concerned, the law is very clear and this Court can interfere only when a glaring feature is brought to its notice as per the judgment of Supreme Court reported in JT 1999(1) SC page 456, State of Kerala v. Puttumana lllath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc. Learned counsel submitted that salient feature of this case is that though offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is compoundable still the learned Sessions Judge did not give permission and as such the order refusing permission is illegal. 8. I have gone through the various provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt offence under Section 323 I.RC. is compoundable without permission of the Court but as per provisions of Section 320(5) Cr.RC. when the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard. As per provisions of Section 320(9) Cr.RC. no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. The section provides that when appeal has been preferred against conviction, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court before which the appeal is to be heard. 9. It is found from the order of learned Sessions Judge that though compromise was submitted on the date when Presiding Officer was on leave, the person who had compounded never appeared thereafter to obtain permission or to compound the offence. Rather it was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge that he had withdrawn the compromise. As such, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in rejecting the compromise. 10. Learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, maintained conviction of Shiv Kishan under Section 148/323 I.RC. and of other petitioners under Secs. 147, 323 I.RC. and gave benefit of probation to all the petitioners. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned Sessions Judge. 11. 10. Learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, maintained conviction of Shiv Kishan under Section 148/323 I.RC. and of other petitioners under Secs. 147, 323 I.RC. and gave benefit of probation to all the petitioners. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned Sessions Judge. 11. Consequently, there is no force in this revision peiition andthe same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******