V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) MR. J. P. Singh, III Additional Munsif Magistrate Fatehpur by his order dated 22/2/1984 found Umesh Tewari guilty of offence under section 332 of the I. P. C. convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment. This order was passed in criminal case No. 198 of 1981. ( 2 ) AN appeal being No. 32 of 1984 was then preferred by Umesh Tewari and it came up for hearing before Shri Dinesh Mohan Arya H. J. S. , IVth Additional Sessions Judge of Fatehpur. The learned Judge disposed it of on 14/8/1984 upholding the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal in toto. Then this revision has been filed. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was that on 2/5/1980 at about 10 in the morning the complainant Hafizullah Khan was returning from his invigilation duty from the Janhitkari Inter College, Khaga Fatehpur earlier in the day. He had stopped the accused Umesh Tewari in his attempt to help his brother in copying out the answers of the questions see in the examination and had also stopped him from molesting the girl-students. Out of this ranjish, the accused-revisionist suddenly appeared on the way and gave him lathi blows, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He got himself medically examined the same day and then lodged the first information report. In support of the prosecution case, Hafizullah Khan entered the witness box as his own witness aild also examined Sri Sat Sarup Singh who also was an eyewitness. ( 4 ) IT appears that during the course of the pendency of this revision, the parties entered into compromise and the compromise petition was sent down to the court below for verification. It has since been received here after verification. The charge under section 332 of the I. P. C. is not compoundable. Nevertheless, in this revision, which has been admitted on the question of sentence only, the fact of the compromise can be taken into consideration in awarding the sentence. In a similar case, the Honble the Supreme Court of India also took the same view; (Ram Pujan and others v. State of U. P.), may be looked into. Nevertheless, in this revision, which has been admitted on the question of sentence only, the fact of the compromise can be taken into consideration in awarding the sentence. In a similar case, the Honble the Supreme Court of India also took the same view; (Ram Pujan and others v. State of U. P.), may be looked into. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has said that if the sentence is reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus some fine, which may also be imposed in addition, his client will not treat it to be an enhancement in sentence. It appears that the lower appellate Courts judgment was delivered on 14/8/1984 and the revisionist was taken into custody. Then this revision was filed on 5/9/1984 and bail was granted to the revisionist. Therefore, during this intervening period between 14/8/1984 and the date on which he was actually released from jail, he remained in jail custody. It means that for about 23 days or even more the revisionist has been in jail custody. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the factum of compromise between the parties and the fact that they belong to the same place and that in view of the settlement of dispute between them, they will be able to live like good citizens and neighbours, I think that while the conviction of the revisionist under section 332 I. P. C. is to be upheld, the sentence should be reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 500. 00. In the event of default of payment of fine, however, the revisionist will have to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned Court below. The amount of fine shall be paid within two months from the date of the receipt of the record in the court below. ( 7 ) THE revision is, therefore, allowed in part, and while the conviction of the revisionist under section 332 I. P. C. is upheld, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 500. 00. It is ordered that the fine shall be paid within two months from the date of the receipt of the record in the court below and in the event of default of payment of fine, the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment would be served by the revisionist as awarded by the courts below. 500. 00. It is ordered that the fine shall be paid within two months from the date of the receipt of the record in the court below and in the event of default of payment of fine, the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment would be served by the revisionist as awarded by the courts below. ( 8 ) OUT of the amount of fine, if so realised, a sum Rs. 250. 00 shall be given to Hafizullah Khancomplement injured by way of compensation for his injury. .