JUDGMENT 1. - S.B. Criminal Jail Revision No. 7 of 1982 has been filed by the accused Sunder Pal against the order dated Sept. 24, 1981 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which his appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anupgarh, by his Judgment dated July 29, 1980 convicted the accused Sunderpal under Sections 447, 323 and 325, I.P.C. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under S. 447, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that the accused-petitioner shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. The accused-petitioner was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month in respect of offence under S. 323, I.P.C. So far offence under S. 325, I.P.C. is concerned, the accused-petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of line, to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal was preferred by the accused. That appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on September 24, 1981 as aforesaid. S.B. Criminal Jail Revision Petition No. 7 of 1981 has been filed through Jail, which was admitted on January 13, 1982 and the record was requisitioned. 3. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 48 of 1982 is a represented I revision filed by Mr. Bharat, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on Sepetember 24, 1981. As both the revision petitions arise out of the same Judgement, they are disposed of by this order. 4. I have heard Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused petitioner, has confined the revisions to the question of sentence only. 6. It has been stated in writing by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on Sepetember 24, 1981, the accused-petitioner was taken into custody and since then, he has been undergoing the sentence awarded to him. Mr. 6. It has been stated in writing by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on Sepetember 24, 1981, the accused-petitioner was taken into custody and since then, he has been undergoing the sentence awarded to him. Mr. Sharma submits I that as the petitioner has been undergoing the sentence of imprisonment since Sepetember 24, 1981, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner being excessive, it should be reduced to the sentence already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the accused-petitioner Sunderpal has been undergoing the sentence of imprisonment since Sepetember 24, 1981, when he was taken into custody after the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. 7. I have carefully looked into the events leading to the conviction of the accused-petitioner and also the injuries inflicted by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the interest of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment, which was awarded lo the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 325, I.P.C. to the sentence already undergone by him. 8. I, therefore, confirm the conviction of the accused-petitioner but reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 9. The revision petitions are allowed only to the extent indicated but dismissed in all other respects.Revision allowed. *******