JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Anwarul Hasan and Rahis Ahmad have filed this revision against the appellate. judgment and order dated 3.10.1991 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, whereby the conviction of the applicants under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentence of one year R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the applicants as passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, on 10.7.1991 were upheld. 2. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence only on 1.11.1991 and it was directed that in case the applicants deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each before the C.J.M. and then applied for bail they may be released on bail. It was further directed that if a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited the C.J.M. shall pay the same to Smt. Kusuma Devi as compensation. 3. An affidavit was filed on 22.1.1992 saying that the deposit of Rs. 6,000/- has been made in the court. In the mean time a report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been received wherefrom it appears that the sum of Rs. 6,000/- has been paid to Smt. Kusuma Devi by the C.J.M. summoning her in his court. 4. Sri Devandra Swarup, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the prosecution case was false and that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of Smt. Kusuma Devi. The trial court has placed implicit reliance on thee testimony of P.W. 1 Smt. Kusuma Devi and P.W. 2 Mohd. Asam who were examined as eye-witnesses and that head constable Krishan Lal Yadav P.W. 3, and the Investigating Officer S.I. Harihar Singh as P.W. 4, the said finding of fact has been upheld by the appellate court, Consequently there was no error in the conviction of the applicants, as a result of which this revision was admitted only on the question of sentence on the statement of Sri Devendra Swarup that if increased amount of fine is imposed the applicants will not take it as enhancement of sentence and that no useful purpose will be served if the applicants were made to undergo one year's R. I. each. It was further clear that on 1.11.1991 the applicants had already undergone more than a week's sentence each. 5. It was further clear that on 1.11.1991 the applicants had already undergone more than a week's sentence each. 5. Sri A. K. Tripathi learned A. G. A. has been heard in opposition who has already said that a main suitable compensation amount should be paid to the prosecutrix. 6. In view of the report of the C. J. M. that the sum of Rs. 3,000/- each as fine has been deposited no further action in this regard needs to be taken. 7. Consequently this revision is dismissed with the direction that the conviction of the applicants Anwarul Hasan and Rahis Ahmad under Section after 354 I.P.C. is maintained but their sentence 4. Sri Devandra Swarup, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the prosecution case was false and that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of Smt. Kusuma Devi. The trial court has placed implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W. 1 Smt. Kusuma Devi and P.W. 2 Mohd. Asam who were examined as eye-witnesses and that of head constable Krishan Lal Yadav P.W. 3, and the Investigating Officer S. I. Harihar Singh are reduced to the period undergone and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each on the said count. A sum of Rs. 6,000/- has already been paid as compensation to the prosecutrix Smt. Kusuma Devi as per the report of the C.J.M. No further action need be taken in this regard. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender: Their bail bonds are discharged.