This is a revision against the order of conviction u/s. 323 I. P. C. and sentence imposed on the petitioner is imprison­ment for one month. The prosecution case is that the accused Nandalal had impaired relations with the injured Dilip Das. On 27.10.77 at 5 P.M. while the accused was proceeding towards the Bara-bazar of Nagaon town, the accused caught hold of the injured by his shirt and boxed him at his face and nose. Dilip was taken to hospital and treated. He bled from his mouth and nose. Later a tooth turned loose. The story has been stated by the injured P. W. Dilip Das and confirmed by his compa­nions P. Ws. Tilok Bora and Haru Dey. The witnesses are natural witnesses. They had no grudge or animosity against the accused. The doctor, who was examined in court, has proved the injuries. Although the d3Ctor stated that the tooth injury was grievous learned Magistrate did not consider it to be grie­vous hurt for reasons stated in his judgment and convicted the accused u/s. 323 I. P. C. and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment. The petitioner took an abortive appeal. Although a faint attempt was made by the learned coun­sel for the petitioner to show that the conviction was not sustainable, in the course of the argument, considering the in­herent strength of the prosecution case, learned counsel submitted that the sentence should be altered. I find that the case against the accused person has been well established by the injured and the two eye witnesses. The doctor has proved the injuries, there is no embellishment in the testimony. They are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. They have corroborated each other on all material particulars. I find no material to disturb the concurrent findings of fact reached by the courts below that the accused caused simple hurt to the injured Dilip Das, So, let me consider about the sentence. The relevant factors for considering the severity of the se­ntence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to get speedy justice has been breached by the prosecution, as such, the petitioner should not be sent back to jail. The relevant factors for considering the severity of the se­ntence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to get speedy justice has been breached by the prosecution, as such, the petitioner should not be sent back to jail. Instead he may be released on P. R. Bond, The other su­bmissions are that the accused was a young person in his th­irties at the time of the incident and now he is in mid-forty-Ten long years have rolled by since the incident. It has been urged that the petitioner has settled down in his life. He has his own business, holds a position in the society. He is a member of the gaon panchayat and vice-president of Governing Bodies of a number of schools within his panchayati jurisdiction. The other relevant factor is that as a young person the accused dealt fist blows but did not use any weapon like dagger, lathi etc. In the instant case there was a bad blood between the parties. The accused as well as the injured were young persons. A fist blow or two was given and the accused is surely guilty, but his sente­nce should, be balanced in view of the nature of his actions, indeed, he did not use any dangerous or other weapon of ass­ault but used his bare hand. This is one factor. The second factor is that the crime was committed by him while he was young and now he is a middle aged and responsible person. There has been long delay and the accused has suffered for so many years. The sentence imposed is a short term one, na­mely, imprisonment for one month. No useful purpose would be served by dispatching the accused to jail for one month, The society is not likely to gain anything. The punishment to be inflicted under the law is not retribution. It should be proportionate, just and adequate. In view of the long lapse of time, the act of the accused and the relevant consideration that the constitutional right of speedy trial has been breached, I modify the sentence of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- instead of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner-accused shall pay the fine within a month from today, in default, to suffer R. I. for one month. 300/- instead of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner-accused shall pay the fine within a month from today, in default, to suffer R. I. for one month. The fine, if and when realised, shall be paid to Dr. B. Barooah Cancer Institute, Gauhati. Learned Magistrate shall remit the amount to the Institute. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fine shall be paid within one month. In the result, the petition is partly allowed.