Cr.R. No.458/2001 13.12.2011. Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondent /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 27.4.2001 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2000 upholding the judgment dated 5.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Raisen in Criminal Case No. 167/97 convicting the applicant under Section 457 of IPC for one year RI with fine of Rs.500, has been affirmed. 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 for 17 days between 5.7.1993 to 21.7.93 during trial and between 27.4.01 to 9.5.01, 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 the 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 of one month, as stated above, and as per available record he did not have any 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 one month for which he has already undergone, by enhancing some fine amount. 7. Therefore, by affirming the aforesaid conviction of the applicant under Section 457 of IPC this revision is allowed in part and awarded jail sentence of the applicant under Section 457 of IPC is hereby reduced from one year to the aforesaid period of one month for which he has already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.3500/-. The enhanced fine amount is to be deposited by the applicant in the trial court within 45 days from today, failing which he has to suffer further two months simple imprisonment. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. 8. Revision is allowed in part, as indicated above. (U. C. Maheshwari) Judge bks