JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 25.1.88 by Mr. P.K. Jain, Sessions Judge Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1987. He confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.7.87 passed by Sri R.B.'Lal, Judicial Magistrate, First (Jalaun) in Criminal Case No. 431 of 1987. The learned Magistrate had convicted Vinod Kumar on a charge under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 323 I.P.C. and had sentenced him to six month's Rigorous Imprisonment on the first charge and to three months rigorous imprisonment on the second charge. The learned Sessions Judge maintained and upheld the conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. but converted the sentence awarded under Section 323 I.P.C. to one under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. maintaining the sentence awarded. Similarly Ram Kumar was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 324 and 323 I.P.C. This conviction was altered to one under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. but the sentences of six months and three months rigorous imprisonment were upheld and confirmed. 2. The victim is one Chandra Gupta and teeth biting was given by Vinod Kumar, and Ram Kumar joined Vinod Kumar in assaulting him. The revision was admitted on the point of sentence only and after concurrent findings of the Courts below, the facts o1 the matter can not be allowed to be agitated and stand established. 3. It appears that the occurrence took place on 8.8.1985. The appeal was decided by the learned Sessions Judge on 25.1.88 and this revision was admitted only on the point of sentence by me and bail was allowed to the revisionists on 30.1.88. Therefore for about six days, both the revisionists have already been in jail custody. The injurer were very minor and therefore, in my opinion, while the convictions as directed by the learned Sessions Judge shall stand uphold and confirmed, but the sentences should be reduced. 4. The learned counsel says that his client will have no objection if the sentence of imprisonment is substituted by imprisonment already undergone plus fine and it will not be treated to be an enhancement of sentence. The conviction of Vinod Kumar under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Is maintained and upheld. The sentence awarded under Section 324 I.P.C. is reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The conviction of Vinod Kumar under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Is maintained and upheld. The sentence awarded under Section 324 I.P.C. is reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine within the time that this court is allowing now, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 323 read with 34 I.P.C. the sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs. 300/- which should also be paid within the time that is being allowed by this Court and if any default is committed, he will under go rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Similarly Ram Kumar's conviction on both the charges under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. is upheld and confirmed. On the first count, he is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 1000/- which he should pay within the time that this court is allowing now, and in default of which he will undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. On the second charge, his sentence is reduced to a fine within the time that is now being allowed, he shall undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Out of the amount of fine that is realised, a sum of Rs. 2000/- shall be paid to Chandra Gupta victim of this case. The amounts of fine shall be deposited in the Court below within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of this order in the Court below and thereafter the default clause shall apply. The office shall forthwith send a copy of this judgment to the Court below.