(1) BOTH these appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CriminalNos. 411 and 478 of 1978. It is beyond dispute that an occurrence which took place at about 6.00 p.m. on 13/03/1977 resulted in Public Witness 1, Netraprakash Sharma and his father, Public Witness 4 Goverdhan Lal Sharma sustaining injuries on their person. According to the prosecution, the appellant Ram Raj Singh used a dharia and the appellants Sarat Singh, Tej Bahadur and Mulchand used lathis to cause injuries to the victims and the appellant Diwan Singh threatened the witnesses with a pistol when the assailants withdrew from the scene after the incident was over. The prosecution rested its case upon the testimony of the injured witnesses Public Witness 1, Netraprakash Sharma and Public Witness 4, Goverdhan Lal Sharma, besides that of Public Witness 6 Pawan Kumar, Public Witness 5 Deoraj and Public Witness 10 Baldeo Singh. As a result of the attack, Public Witness 1 Netraprakash Sharma sustained a simple injury and Public Witness 4, Goverdhanlal Sharma sustained four simple injuries. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellants Ram Raj Singh and Diwan Singh under S. 148 IPC and the other appellants under S. 147 IPC. Besides, the appellant Ram Raj Singh was convicted under S. 455 and 324 Indian Penal Code while the other appellants were convicted under S. 455 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. While the appellant Ram Raj Singh was awarded a sentence of one year RI under two counts and eighteen months RI under one count besides a fine of Rs. 200.00, Rs. 200.00 and Rs. 100.00 for his convictions, the other accused were sentenced to imprisonment for nine months under two counts and one year under one count besides fine of Rs. 100.00 on each count for their convictions. The High court declined to interfere with the convictions and sentences and hence these appeals by special leave. (2) THE appeals of Ram Raj Singh and Diwan Singh have now become academic because they have served out their sentences and also remitted the Fines imposed on them. Insofar as the other three appellants are concerned, they have undergone sentence for two months and they have remitted the fine amounts imposed on them. (2) THE appeals of Ram Raj Singh and Diwan Singh have now become academic because they have served out their sentences and also remitted the Fines imposed on them. Insofar as the other three appellants are concerned, they have undergone sentence for two months and they have remitted the fine amounts imposed on them. (3) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State, we do not see any ground to differ from the view taken by the Sessions Judge and the High court as regards the occurrence and culpable acts of the accused resulting in injuries being caused to Public Witness 1, Netraprakash Sharma and Public Witness 4, Goverdhan Lal Sharma. However, we are of the view that since the initiative for the occurrence was taken solely by the appellant Ram Raj Singh and that the injured witnesses had sustained only simple injuries, the ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentences awarded to the appellants Surat Singh, Tej Bhadur and Mulchand to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them besides the sentence of fine imposed upon them under the three counts. (4) IT is represented that appellant Tej Bahadur is employed as a Manager in a Cooperative Society. Because of the minor role played by him in the occurrence, we do not think the conviction awarded to him should stand in the way of his continuing in service. We, therefore, make it clear that his conviction in this case should not affect his continuance in employment in any manner. (5) WITH the modification in the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants Surjit Singh, Tej Bahadur and Mulchand and the observations made regarding the continuance in service of the appellant Tej Bahadur, the appeals will stand dismissed.