JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. 1. THIS revision was admitted on the question of sentence. Learned counsel has also argued the revision only on the question of sentence and not on merits. 2. THE prosecution case, in brief was that one Tek Chand had illicit intimacy with one Smt. Kalawati. At about 9 p. m. on 6-7-1965, Tek Chand went to the house of Smt. Kalawati. One Ram Kishore protested. Tek Chand did not like the protest and went back. Soon after, he came back along with the other accused armed with deadly weapons. Tek Chand had a sword. Bheem Sen had a Ballam and other accused had lathis. They gave beating to Ram Kishore, Data Ram, Lalloo and Hori. All of them suffered injuries. The injuries caused to them were large in number. Ram Kishore sustained seven injuries, Data Ram seven, Lalloo five and Hori one injury. Out of them Ram Kishore suffered four incised wounds and Data Ram two incised wounds. Lalloo got a punctured wound. Other injuries were either contusions or lacerated wounds. The trial court held that the prosecution had proved the case and accordingly convicted the applicants along with some others under section 148 IPC and sentenced them to six months' R. I. and further convicted them under section 325/149 IPC and sentenced them to 18 months' R. J. Tek Chand and Bheem Sen were additionally convicted under section 324 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 18 months and one year respectively. Other accused were additionally convicted under section 324/149 IPC and sentenced to six months' R. I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate Court modified the convictions and sentences and passed the following operative order :- "The appeal of Tek Chand, Bheem Sen, Babu, Khem Karan and Arjun is dismissed but their conviction and sentences are altered as follows : Tek Chand and Bheem Sen are convicted u/S. 148/324 IPC and each sentenced to R. I. for six months and one year respectively on the two counts. Babu, Khem Karan and Arjun are convicted u/S. 147 and 323/34 IPC and each of them sentenced to R. I. for three months and six months respectively on the two counts of 147 and 324/34 IPC. A separate sentence need not be passed for the minor offence of) 323/34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Babu, Khem Karan and Arjun are convicted u/S. 147 and 323/34 IPC and each of them sentenced to R. I. for three months and six months respectively on the two counts of 147 and 324/34 IPC. A separate sentence need not be passed for the minor offence of) 323/34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. They are on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences according to law. Appeal of Pearey, Tika Ram and Lala Ram is allowed. Their conviction and sentences are set aside. They are on bail and need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled." 3. ARJUN accused filed Criminal Revision no. 387 of 1974. That was dismissed on 5-3-1974. The present revision has been; filed by Tek Chand, Khem Karan, Bheem Sen and Babu. 4. LEARNED counsel for the applicants has contended that the sentences awarded to the applicants be reduced to the sentence already undergone as it would not be proper and in the interest of justice to send the applicants back to jail after a lapse of such a long time. The offence was committed on July 6, 1965. The Trial court recorded the conviction on 26-4-1973. The appeal was decided on 1st March 1974. The revision was admitted on 5-4-1974. The applicants have mostly remained on bail. The revision has been filed under section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court can interfere with the sentence if it is not satisfied about its correctness, legality or propriety. Nothing has been shown as to why the sentences awarded are illegal. The offences are punishable with higher sentences of imprisonment. Similarly, there is nothing to show that they are not correct. The circumstances in which the offence was committed do not justify the imposition of any sentence less than the sentence that have been awarded by the appellate court. The accused came prepared after they had enough time to compose themselves. Except Tek Chand none else had even a cause of grievance to assault the complainant and his associates. The assault was made on unarmed persons with deadly weapons. The action of the accused was a deliberate action. The nature of injuries caused though they are simple in nature was serious and the injuries were multiple in number. Except Tek Chand none else had even a cause of grievance to assault the complainant and his associates. The assault was made on unarmed persons with deadly weapons. The action of the accused was a deliberate action. The nature of injuries caused though they are simple in nature was serious and the injuries were multiple in number. The attack which was deliberately made was made with weapons which are not normally carried for defence. The sentence awarded by the appellate court cannot as such be held to be either incorrect or improper. 5. LEARNED counsel, however, contended that the delay in the trial by itself is a factor to be considered when considering the propriety of the sentence. It may be, in some cases, a factor to be considered along with the other factors, but by itself it cannot be a ground for setting aside or reducing the sentence awarded by the appellate court in exercise of the High Court's revisional powers. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, 1973 Criminal Appeals Reporter (SC) 291. That was a case in which the accused was convicted under section 304-A of the IPC. The Supreme Court on a consideration of the material before it found that the investigation was not scientifically conducted. It also found that reasonably argument could not be advanced against the conviction itself. The relevant passage from the judgment is :- "In such circumstances it could no doubt, have been contended with a certain amount of reason that the death of the child was a remote and indirect result of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant and not an immediate, direct, natural and proximate consequence. But the three courts having so held, we do not think this Court will be justified in appraising the evidence for itself on this part of the case on the peculiar facts and circumstances disclosed on the printed record. The appellant's conviction must, therefore, be upheld in agreement with the conclusions of the three courts below." It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court was considering the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused. The appellant's conviction must, therefore, be upheld in agreement with the conclusions of the three courts below." It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court was considering the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused. Dealing with the question of sentence the Court observed : "...The circumstances in which the collision between the truck and the appellant's scooter occurred seems prima facie to suggest that they (their drivers) were both to blame. Penalities designed to deter crime should be guaged to so far as possible to the degree of social danger that is represented by the crime and its repetition." It was in these circumstances that the Court was of opinion that the accused be not sent back to jail after a lapse of more than eight years to serve out the sentence of six months R. I. when it was unlikely to have any reformatory effect on the accused. The Court accordingly directed the payment of fine in addition to the sentence already undergone and did not send the accused back to jail. The circumstances in the present case are entirely different. Here, the offence has been clearly established and there are no mitigating circumstances. Unlike an offence under section 304-A, the applicants have committed an offence which involves mens rea and a deliberate action. In the case before the Supreme Court, the injury was caused not by any deliberate act or volition but involuntarily due to rashness negligence. In the present case, the injury have been caused deliberately and consciously with deadly weapons. The principle, therefore, which was applied in Jagdish Chander's case cannot be applicable to the present case. 6. THE other case relied upon by the learned counsel is the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain v. State of U.P., 1973 ACC 211. This was a case of extortion. The accused was convicted under section 384 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded was one years' R.I. The case had depended on the comparison of hand writings. The relevant observation of the Court on merits of the conviction is in the following terms :- "No serious attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to find fault with the approach of the three courts below. There is, therefore, no ground made out for interference by this Court with the appellant's conviction. The relevant observation of the Court on merits of the conviction is in the following terms :- "No serious attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to find fault with the approach of the three courts below. There is, therefore, no ground made out for interference by this Court with the appellant's conviction. Unfortunately, the record is not before us otherwise we would have also tried to examine for ourselves the disputed and the specimen hand writings. However, in view of the concurrent decisions of the three courts below, we did not consider it necessary to adjourn the hearing of this case to have the documents before us for our examination." No doubt, the Supreme Court took into consideration the long time which had been taken by criminal, proceedings which lasted for more than eight years. The reduction of sentence to the imprisonment already undergone with the addition of fine really turned on the courts' opinion that the offence was trivial. The relevant sentence of the Supreme Court in this respect is :- "......The offence of attempted extortion undoubtedly reflects to some extent anti social depravity of mind but the attempt did not succeed," The present case is again not parallel to the case of Ram Narain v. State of U. P. In that case, the attempt had not succeeded. In the present case, the matter went beyond the stage of attempt and ended in the actual commission of the offence resulting in multiple injuries to several persons. In the case of Ram Narain the Supreme Court has laid down the factors which have to be taken into consideration While awarding sentence. It is stated :- .......Though a large number of factor fall for consideration in determining the appropriate sentence, the broad object of punishment of an accused found guilty in progressive civilized societies is to impress on the guilty party that commission of crimes does not pay and that it is both against his individual interest and also against the larger interest of the society to which be belongs." Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court the relieving of the applicants of the sentence will fail to impress on the guilty party that the commission of crimes does not pay. Once the Court finds that the sentence awarded by the court below is correct, legal and proper there can be no ground for setting it aside. Once the Court finds that the sentence awarded by the court below is correct, legal and proper there can be no ground for setting it aside. Mere suspension of the execution of the sentence during appeal or revision can by itself be no ground for holding that the sentence awarded by the court is either incorrect or improper. As the quantum of sentences awarded to the applicants is proper, it cannot be reduced. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed. The applicants are on bail. They should surrender to their bail bonds and serve out the sentence awarded to them. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Revision dismissed.