(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1467/2006 SURESH GILANIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE: 19.03.2007. HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J. Mr. R.D.S. Naruka for the complainant-petitioner. Mr. Ashwini Kr. Sharma, P.P. for the State. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma for the accused-respondents. **** Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This revision petition is filed after a delay of 114 days and the reasons for filing the revision petition after such a long delay has been stated by the petitioner are that he was not made party and was not aware of the final judgment passed by the Appellate Court, therefore, this revision petition has been filed after a delay of 114 days. Although the petitioner is not able to satisfy this Court regarding delay in the filing the revision petition, but in the interest of justice, the matter was heard on merit also. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.05.2006 passed by the Additional (2) Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer, Camp Kishangarp in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2005, whereby the Appellate Court while modifying the judgment dated 01.12.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh in Criminal Case No. 734/2001, acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges under Sections 147, 341, 498-A and 406 IPC. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the judgment passed by the trial Court dated 01.12.2004 whereby the accused-respondents have been convicted under various offences and the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 01.05.2006 whereby the accused- respondents have been acquitted from the offences under Sections 147, 341, 498-A and 406 IPC but convicted only under Section 323 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The dispute is admitted by the Appellate Court but the rest of the allegations with regard to dowry etc. have not been considered and the findings given by the trial Court vide judgment dated 01.12.2004 have been reversed by the Appellate Court after giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused-respondents, although the trial Court has discussed this on merit (3) dealing with the evidence on record. In the interest of justice, I deem it proper to condone the delay of 114 days in filing the present revision petition as the accused-respondents are already represented through their counsel Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma. I do not want to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court dated 01.05.2006 as the Appellate Court has rightly observed and reversed the findings given by the trial Court and convicted the accused-respondents under Section 323 IPC by way of awarding fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the accused. So far as punishment awarded by the Appellate Court to the accused-respondents under Section 323 IPC by way of imposing fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the accused is concerned, in my considered view, the same is not sufficient, therefore, I deem it proper to modify the impugned judgment dated 01.05.2006 passed by the Appellate Court to the extent that the amount of fine awarded by the Appellate Court is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- for each of the accused, in default of payment of aforesaid fine, the accused- respondents will have to undergo six months imprisonment. (4) With this modification in the impugned judgment dated 01.05.2006 passed by the Appellate Court, the revision petition stands disposed of. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also stands disposed of. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/