Cr.R. No. 374/2001 13.12.2011. Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel for the applicants. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondent /State. This revision is heard finally on merits. O R D E R 1. The applicants accused have directed this revision challenging the sustainability of judgment dated 11.4.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul in Criminal Appeal No. 80/98 affirming the judgment dated 13.11.198 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in Criminal Case No. 1014/90 convicting and sentencing to both the applicants under Sections 325/34 of IPC for six months RI with fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of depositing the fine further RI for one month. In addition to it, the applicant no. 1 -Prem was also convicted under Section 354 of IPC for RI four months. 2. The applicants' counsel without challenging any finding of the impugned judgment holding the above mentioned conviction of the applicants has made his limited submissions that considering the long pendency of the case and during such period they have suffered the mental agony of the case and besides this also suffered the jail sentence of 29 days 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. Thus, by adopting the lenient view their awarded jail sentence be reduced up to the aforesaid period for which they have 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 applicants' 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 applicants' guilty for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, there is no scope in the case to extend the acquittal to the applicants, consequently the alleged conviction of the applicants is hereby affirmed. 5. Looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicants I do not found fit to extend the benefit of the provision of Probation of the Offenders Act to them. 6. Coming to the consider the prayer of the applicants' counsel for reducing the awarded jail sentence is concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent fact on record that the applicants are facing the mental agony of this case since long from the date of their arrest and also suffered the jail sentence of 29 days, as stated above, and as per available record they did not have any criminal antecedents and in such premises they appear to be first offenders. Thus considering all these circumstances by adopting the lenient view, I deem fit to reduce their jail sentence up to the aforesaid period for which they have already undergone, by enhancing some fine amount with a direction to pay the enhanced some to the victim to sub serve the justice with him/ them also. 7. Therefore, by affirming the aforesaid conviction of the applicants this revision is allowed in part and their awarded jail sentence is hereby reduced to the aforesaid period of 29 days for which they have already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine under Section 325/34 from Rs.200/- to Rs.5000/- against each of the applicants. Besides, this fine Rs.3000/- is also imposed against applicant no. 1 -Prem under Section 354 of IPC. The enhanced and the imposed fine amount under the aforesaid Sections shall be deposited by each of the applicants in the trial court within 60 days from today, failing in depositing the enhanced fine they have to suffer further three months simple imprisonment in each count. On depositing the enhanced and imposed fine amount within the aforesaid period Rs.10,000/- be given to the victim- injured Mangliya (PW-2) and Rs.3000/- to prosecutrix -Sumantara, (PW-1) by calling them in the trial Court through summons. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. 8. It is made clear that out of the aforesaid maximum fine amount if any amount has been deposited in compliance of the judgment of the courts below, then the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced and imposed sum. 9. Revision is allowed in part, as indicated above. (U. C. Maheshwari) Judge bks