(1 ) Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ****************** O r d e r 13-12-2011 Shri Anshu Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.K. Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. Petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05/11/2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sheopur, District Sheopur (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.59/2008, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22/08/2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur (MP) in Criminal Case No.392/2008, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. 2. At the time of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not challenging (2 ) Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 the finding of learned trial Court with respect to his conviction and only prayer is made with respect to awarding the sentence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the first offender and there is no previous criminal history alleged against him. He remained in custody for two days after passing of the judgment by learned lower appellate Court. He has already paid fine amount as awarded by trial court and affirmed by lower appellate Court. Hence, period of sentence awarded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned lower appellate Court be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. 3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State has formally opposed the prayer of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 4. As learned counsel for the petitioner is not challenging the finding of the conviction, therefore, discussion of evidence is not necessary. Only one point is to be decided, is awarding of sentence. 5. Looking to the nature of offence and also considering the fact that petitioner is facing trial since 2008 and he is the first offender and there is no previous criminal history alleged against him, therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC is maintained, reducing the period of (3 ) Criminal Revision No. 879 of 2009 sentence as already undergone by him in custody. The fine amount as awarded by learned trial Court as well as affirmed by learned lower appellate Court shall remain as it is. 6. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged. (Anil Sharma) Judge mkb/-