JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner was convicted under section 13 of the Rajasthan Gambling l Ordinance (No LVIII of 1949) (for short the Ordinance) and sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment. He filed appeal and learned Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction by his order dated September 27, 1982. Benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was refused by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. 3. I have heard Mr. S. N. Sharma for the petitioner and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor. 4. Mr. S. N. Sharma contended that only two witnesses (P.W. 1) Chiman Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and (P.W. 2) Kartarsingh, A.S I. have been examined in this case and from their evidence offence under S. 13 of the Ordinance has not been proved. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, carefully examined the statement of the aforesaid witnesses and also the 'parchis' of 'satta' which were recovered from the accused-petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, in his order, has observed as under:- " lV~Vs dh iphZ ij lV~Vs ds uEcj o mlds uhps jkf'k vafdr dh xbZ gS vkSj iphZ ij rk0 7&3&80 vafdr gSa ftlls Li"V gSa fd 7&3&80 dh iphZ esa vafdr v{kjksa ij mlds uhps vafdr jkf'k ds lV~Vs dh vfHk;qDr us [kkbZokyh dh gSaA " The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the finding of conviction and sentenced the accused-petitioner. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, scrutinised the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses and held that it has been proved that parchis' of satta' and the amount of satta were recovered from the accused-petitioner. He endorsed the reasoning given by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate was based on evidence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on that evidence and confirmed the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate, and the same cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse and the evidence lead by the prosecution in support of the case, again cannot be appreciated in revision when the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not duly considered and appraised it. I am not satisfied that any good ground exists for re-examination of that evidence. The accused-petitioner has rightly been convicted under Sec. 13 of the Ordinance. I am not satisfied that any good ground exists for re-examination of that evidence. The accused-petitioner has rightly been convicted under Sec. 13 of the Ordinance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after convicting the accused-petitioner under S. 13 of the Ordinance, awarded sentence of one months rigorous imprisonment.The sentence provided under S. 13 of the Ordinance is fine not exceeding Rs. 50/- or imprisonment not exceeding one calendar month. The learned Judicial Magistrate awarded the maximum sentence provided under S. 13 of the Ordinance, namely rigorous imprisonment for one month. It was submitted by Mr. S. N. Sharma that in case the conviction is upheld, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner will be severe. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rest satisfied by writing in his order under appeal that the sentence that has been awarded to the accused-petitioner is liable to be maintained. 5. Mr. S. N. Sharma submitted that on the date of the decision of the appeal i.e., September 27, 1982, the accused-petitioner was taken in custody and since then, until today, he has been undergoing the sentence awarded to him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that ends of justice would be met by awarding the sentence already undergone by the accused-petitioner under S. 13 of the Ordinance. 6. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner under S. 13 of the Ordinance, the revision petition is dismissed. The sentence of one months rigorous imprisonment awarded to the accused petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him (accused-petitioner). He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Revision dismissed - sentence reduced. *******