HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 849 of 2004 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the accused in STC No. 78 of 1998 on the file of the III Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. He was found guilty of the offences punishable u/Sec. 92 of the Factories Act (for short ‘the Act’) for violation of the provisions of Sec.61 of the Act r/w. Rule 79 and Rule 103 of the Factories Rules on two counts. 2 . The revision petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Traders, Chimakurthy. The prosecution examined only one witness on its behalf and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The accused did not choose to examine any one in support of his contention. The learned III Addl.Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, found the accused guilty of both the offences levelled against him and consequently sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the two counts. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No. 115 of 2000 before the V Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Ongole. Through impugned Judgment dt. 30.4.2004, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal reducing the rigorous imprisonment of six months to one month but maintaining the fine as imposed by the trial court against the accused. 3. Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel representing the accused inter alia contended that the petitioner/accused suffered imprisonment for a period of 15 days and has been on suspended sentence from 11.5.2004 till date. By the date of the offence, the petitioner would appear to be 52 years old. He must be over 66 years as on today. That apart, the petitioner has been on suspended sentence since 11.5.2004. I consider that it would be unjust at this stage to send back the petitioner to jail to complete the remaining period of sentence recorded by the appellate court. Taking the age of the petitioner into consideration and the length of time during which the petitioner has been enjoying suspended sentence, it would be just and proper to treat the period of imprisonment already undergone as the period of sufficient sentence, by maintaining sentence of fine recorded by the trial court. 4. The revision therefore, deserves to be ordered by modifying the sentence recorded by the trial court to imprisonment already undergone but confirming the sentence of fine recorded by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the imprisonment of six months recorded by the trial court which was reduced to one month by the appellate court is further modified into sentence of imprisonment already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court is maintained. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand discharged. 5. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. ______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J DT. 10-2-2011 Mjl/*