..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.628 OF 2008 1. Tukaram Narayan Pawar, Age : 67 years, 2. Sanjay Tukaram Pawar, Age : 37 years, Occ. Both Agriculturist, Both R/o. - Salase, Tal - Karmala, Dist - Solapur. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane, Adv. for the Petitioners. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th December, 2008. DATED : 11th December, 2008. DATED : 11th December, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners - orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By judgment and order dated 13.2.2006 in R.C.C. No.93 of 2001 the learned J.M.F.C. Karmala convicted ..(2).. the petitioners. By the said judgment and order both the petitioners came to be convicted under Section 323 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and they came to be sentenced to suffer SI for four months and fine of Rs.500/- each in default SI for one months. They were also convicted under Section 324 r.w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer SI for six months and fine of Rs.500 each in default SI for two months. They were further convicted under Section 504 r.w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer SI for three months and fine of Rs.500/- each in default SI for 15 days. 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be partly allowed and both the petitioners came to be acquitted under Section 504 r.w. 34 of IPC. The petitioner No.1 came to be acquitted of the offence under Section 324 r.w. 34 of IPC. The conviction under Section 323 r.w. 34 of both the petitioners came to be maintained. However, the sentence was reduced. Petitioner No.1 Tukaram was directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default SI for one month and petitioner No.2 - Sanjay was directed to undergo SI for four months and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default SI for one month. Being aggrieved thereby, this Revision has been preferred. ..(3).. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners states that he is not challenging the conviction of both the petitioners, however, he has prayed that the period of imprisonment of both the petitioners be reduced. The learned APP states that there is no objection to the period of imprisonment being reduced, however, fine amount may be increased. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to pass the following order : Conviction of both the petitioners under Section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. Conviction of the petitioner No.2 Sanjay Tukaram Pawar under Section 324 IPC is confirmed. The fine amount imposed on petitioner No.1 Tukaram Narayan Pawar of Rs.500/-, under Section 323 IPC, is increased to Rs.3000 (Rs.Three Thousand Only). However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period undergone by petitioner No.1. As far as petitioner No.2 Sanjay Tukaram Pawar is concerned, the period of imprisonment under Section 323 as well as 324 IPC is reduced to the period undergone by him. However, fine amount under both heads i.e. u/sec.323 & 324 ..(4).. IPC, is increased from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/-. Thus, petitioner No.2 has to pay total fine amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only). The petitioners who are in jail to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made partly absolute. Writ expedited. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]