JUDGMENT Hon’ble K.S. Rakhra, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court IV, Court Room No. 13, Sultanpur, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2005, Mufees and others v. State of U.P., against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2005, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No. 16, Sultanpur, in Criminal Case No. 2177 of 1992, State v. Mufees and others, convicting the revisionists under various sections. 2. They have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 452, I.P.C., to the term of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/34, I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 427, I.P.C. and one year imprisonment under Section 342, I.P.C. 3. According to the prosecution story on 16.7.1992 the accused persons on a very petty matter entered into an altercation with the nephew of the first informant whereafter at about 6 P.M. they attacked the first informant and his family members with Lathi and Danda. The victims ran into their house and there too they were beaten. After the assault was over the culprits left the house of the victims by bolting the door from outside. Five persons in this incident received injuries, which have been discussed in the judgment of the trial Court on pages No. 8, 9 and 10. All the injured received simple injuries and it is not necessary to reproduce them here in this judgment. 4. Argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is that the two Courts below have committed illegality in convicting the revisionists under Section 452 I.P.C. and they also committed illegality in not granting advantage to the revisionists of being first offenders. Learned Counsel for the revisionists stated that for refusing the benefit of the first offenders to the revisionists the two Courts below have not given any reason also. His submission is that the incident took place about fourteen years ago and on petty quarrel this marpeet was done. There was no premeditated action. His submission is that in view of these facts and circumstances the revisionists are entitled to get benefit of being first offenders. 5. His submission is that the incident took place about fourteen years ago and on petty quarrel this marpeet was done. There was no premeditated action. His submission is that in view of these facts and circumstances the revisionists are entitled to get benefit of being first offenders. 5. After considering these submissions of the learned Counsel for the revisionists this Court is of the view that in the circumstances mentioned above, the two Courts below ought to have taken into consideration the facts mentioned by the learned Counsel for the revisionists and the revisionists should have been given benefit of Section 360, Cr.P.C. 6. In Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, 2003 S.C.C. (Cri) 799, it was held that if the Court decides not to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 360, Cr.P.C. then it must record its reasons. In view of the peremptory nature of the language of the provisions of Section 361, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate as well as Court of appeal or revision not having indicated as to why provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C. have not been applied, there has been gross miscarriage of justice and violation of legislative mandate. 7. That being the position, this argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is liable to be accepted. 8. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionists, that in the circumstances of the case, offence under Section 452, l.P.C. was not made out and that instead offence under Section 448, l.P.C. could be said to have been made out, is also liable to be accepted. Section 452, l.P.C. is regarding house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Section 452, l.P.C. says that whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear or hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. In the present case there was nothing on the record to show that the revisionists had committed house-trespass after making preparation as mentioned in Section 452, l.P.C That being the position, appropriate Section for which the revisionists can be held guilty is Section 448, l.P.C. 9. The conviction is, therefore, liable to be partly modified in this light. 10. In the present case there was nothing on the record to show that the revisionists had committed house-trespass after making preparation as mentioned in Section 452, l.P.C That being the position, appropriate Section for which the revisionists can be held guilty is Section 448, l.P.C. 9. The conviction is, therefore, liable to be partly modified in this light. 10. Before parting with the matter, this Court further feels that since there were five persons who allegedly received injuries and there was no sufficient reason for having open this assault, they should be given some compensation because the accused/revisionists are being released on probation of good conduct. In the circumstances of the case each of the revisionists would pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to each of the victims of the assault. 11. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionists under Sections 342,427, 323/34 l.P.C is confirmed. Their conviction under Section 452 IPC. is altered to conviction under Section 448, l.P.C. 12. Instead of sentencing them to any imprisonment straight away they arc directed to be released on probation of good conduct on their executing necessary bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for keeping peace and being of good behaviour for two years and also giving an under taking that they will appear before the Court concerned as and when called upon to receive sentence. This is further subject to the condition that each of the revisionists shall pay Rs. 2000/- to each of the victims as compensation for the injuries caused to them. The release shall be subject to the payment of the compensation. Revision Partly Allowed. ———