IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 96/2002 Bihari Lal & Others ……… Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal ………. Respondent Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, for the revisionists. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA, for the State. 16th June, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The revisionists have been punished by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 23.3.1999 for the offence of Section 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and they were ordered to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment for each of the offences in Case No. 1090/98, Crime No. 107/89 pertaining to Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. This judgment when challenged in appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, then the learned Additional Sessions Judge/II F.T.C., Haridwar partly allowed the appeal acquitting the accused revisionists only for the offence under Section 504 IPC, while sustained the conviction for the offences under Section 323, 324, 506 IPC in Appeal No. 21/99 vide his judgment and order dated 30.2.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons have come up in this revision before this Court. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned GA for the State and perused the lower court record. 2 3. This is the incident where there was some altercation between the parties on the question of asking the direction of the way and this altercation turned into a scuffle. The incident is about 23 years old i.e. of 5.5.1989. 4. The learned Counsel submitted that considering more than two decades old minor incident, that too had occurred without any planning and all of a sudden, just on the minor question of asking the direction of the way between the parties, so the justice will be done if the sentence of gaol is converted into the sentence of fine only. While the learned GA resisted that the accused revisionists should not be allowed to go scot free this way and at least the imprisonment which they undergone already should be inflicted upon them. 5. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, I feel that ends of justice will be met if this revision is allowed with this modification in sentence that the accused revisionists shall remain convicted for the aforesaid offences for the period of imprisonment, howsoever little it might be, which they have already undergone at the time of their first remand or at the time of failure of their appeal in the lower appellate court together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for each of the offences. The judgment and order of the trial court as well as of the lower appellate court is modified to the extent indicated above. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith for compliance of the order. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 16.6.2011 Prabodh