AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Milap Chand Jain, J.—On the request of the counsel for the parties, the revision itself is heard.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties entered into compromise but in view of the nature of the offence, permission was not accorded. He submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period of three months and 25 days. The maximum sentence of one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- has been awarded to Hakma u/s 326 [PC and in default of payment of fine he was further awarded 3 months rigorous imprisonment and u/s 325/149 I.P.C. four months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 148 I.P.C. two months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 day''s RI. Rest of accused persons have been convicted and sentenced u/s 147 to one month''s RI, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 day''s RI u/s 325/149 I.P.C. to four months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of fine to further undergo 1 month''s RI and u/s 325/149, I.P.C. to nine months'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- in default of payment of fine to further under go three months'' RI respectively. The petitioners as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners have remained in custody for three months and 25 days.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by them and to the period of their total custody.
Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Their convictions are maintained. However, their sentences are reduced to the period of their custody on the counts on which more sentence has been awarded over and above the total period of their custody. The sentence of fine are remitted on all counts.
The petitioners shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.