IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.330 of 2009 1. MD. VAJIR SHEKH,S/o Md. Rafic @ Aklu 2. Kuraisha Khatoon,w/o Md. Rafique 3. Chanda Khatoon,w/o Kuddus 4. Md. Rafique,s/o late Abdul Rahman All resident of village-Panchhore, P.S.-Riga,Dist.-Sitamarhi. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Raushan Khatoon,w/o Md. Vajir Shekh, resident of village-Panchhore,P.S.- Riga,District-Sitamarhi,at present C/o late Hamid Miya,r/o village-Sangram Phundah, P.S.-Riga,Dist.-Sitamarhi .. .. Opp.Parties ----------- 05/ 18-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This revision application has been filed against order dated 22-1-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-F.T.C.No.III, Sitamarhi in Cr.Appeal No.01 of 2007/04 of 2007, by which he has partly allowed the appeal acquitting the petitioners from the charges under Sections 380 of the Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Penal Code passed by the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.C1/421/2002,Tr.No.315 of 2006. All the petitioners are convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentence them to undergo two and half years rigorous imprisonment and rupees five hundred as fine. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that relation between the parties was strain but that in between the wife and husband. A maintenance case was filed on behalf of the complainant in which an understanding developed. Complainant as had 2 deserted petitioner no.1, so a remedy of divorce was sought and that was declared by petitioner no.1. A petition to the above effect on behalf of petitioner no.1 and the complainant filed in the Family Court. Parties remained reluctant. So, no final order could be passed. Complainant is reluctant to take initiative so the case is yet pending but relation is not continuing, even then petitioners no.1 and 4 after surrender remained in custody since 05.09.2009 and 21-08-1009 respectively. Petitioners no.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad). They also need protection from sending to jail. A suggestion is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which I agree also that period undergone by petitioners no.1 and 4 if is observed sufficient towards the sentence and for petitioners no.2 and 3 that is minimized to fine only, that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this revision application is partly allowed on the point of sentence, the period undergone by petitioners no.1 and 4 is observed sufficient towards their sentence, while sentence to petitioners no.2 and 3 is minimized to fine only exonerating them from any imprisonment. Imprisonment for non-payment of fine is left intact. Petitioners no.1 and 4 are exonerated from fine, if any. Conviction is affirmed. As petitioners no.1 and 4 (Md. Vajir Shekh and Md. Rafique respectively) are in jail, they are directed to release forthwith, if not required in any other case. Let the order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioners. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )