Cr.R. No.1007/2000 13.12.2011. Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv. for the State. This revision is heard finally on merits. O R D E R 1. The applicant- accused has directed this revision challenging the sustainability of judgment dated 14.7.2000 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2000 whereby the judgment dated 13.3.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Burhanpur in Criminal Case No. 31/94 convicting the applicant under Section 294 and 325 of IPC with the punishment of sentence till rising the Court with fine of Rs.100 in the earlier Section while RI one year with fine of Rs.2000/- in the later with the provision that in default of depositing the fine, further three months SI and six months SI respectively with such Sections has been awarded with a direction to pay Rs.1000/- to the victim as compensation maintaining the fine amount of Rs.100/-, the jail sentence of Section 294 has been set aside while the aforesaid awarded jail sentence under Section 325 of IPC is reduced from one year to six months by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.2000/-to Rs.5000/- and instead Rs.1000/-, the direction to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the victim has also been given. 2. The applicant's counsel without challenging any finding of the impugned judgment holding the above mentioned conviction of the applicant has made his limited submissions that considering the long pendency of the case and during such period he has suffered the mental agony of the case and besides this also suffered the jail sentence of 25 days between 14.7.2000 to 7.8.2000 from the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate court till passing the order for suspension of his remaining jail sentence by this court, by adopting the lenient view his awarded jail sentence be reduced up to the aforesaid period for which he has already undergone under the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the entire factual matrix of the case are not being mentioned in this order. On arising the occasion the same could be taken into consideration from the impugned judgments in which the same were elaborately stated by the Courts below. 3. On the other hand State counsel by justifying the impugned judgment has seriously opposed the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 4. Having heard the parties keeping in view their submissions on perusing the record, I have not found any perversity infirmity or any thing contrary to the propriety of law in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below in holding the applicant's guilty for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, there is no scope in the case to extend the acquittal to the applicant, consequently the alleged conviction of the applicant is hereby affirmed. 5. Looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant, I do not find fit to extend the benefit of the provision of Probation of the Offenders Act to him. 6. Coming to the consider the prayer of the applicant's counsel for reducing his awarded jail sentence is concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent fact on record that the applicant is facing the mental agony of this case since long from the date of his arrest and also suffered the jail sentence for 25 days between 14.7.2000 to 7.8.2000, from the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court till passing the order for suspension of his remaining jail sentence by this Court and as per available record he did not have any other criminal antecedents and in such premises he appears to be first offender. Thus considering all these circumstances by adopting the lenient view, I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence up to the aforesaid period of 25 days, for which he has already undergone, by enhancing some fine amount with a direction to pay the enhanced sum to the victim to sub serve the justice with him also. 7. Therefore, by affirming the aforesaid conviction of the applicant under Section 294 and 325 of IPC this revision is allowed in part and his awarded jail sentence under Section 325 of IPC is hereby reduced to the aforesaid period of 25 days for which he has already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant in the trial Court within 60 days from today, failing in depositing the same he has to suffer further two months simple imprisonment. On depositing the enhanced fine amount within the aforesaid period, the same be given to victim – Tukaram by calling him in the trial Court through summons. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. 7. Revision is allowed in part, as indicated above. (U. C. Maheshwari) Judge bks