JUDGMENT The applicant alongwith his son Raju alias Rajesh were prosecuted for an offence under section 325 IPC for assaulting the complainant Bandi with a lathi on 21.4.85 when the complainant, Bandi was going to sell his earthen pots in the village market. The complainant sustained fracture in his leg and other injuries also. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. on the basis at which the case was instituted. Police after investigation sent up the applicant and his son for trial for an offence under section 325 IPC. The prosecution examined 3 eye-witnesses besides the doctor and I.O. The learned judicial magistrate on consideration of the evidence convicted the applicant for the offence under section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days and acquitted the son of the applicant. The conviction and sentence of the applicant was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh in Cr.A. 18/90. Shri Surendra Singh learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is discrepancy in the prosecution case and the evidence of the informant in the Court. The eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are the interested witnesses in this case, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be sustained. On perusal of the impugned order it, however, appears that the prosecution case and the evidence that the applicant assaulted the informant is consistent. In this view of the matter I do not find any manifest illegality in the conviction. Shri Surendra Singh, however ,contended that this is a case of petty offence and the applicant has remained in custody for more than a month and has also paid the fine. The applicant has also undergone the agony of the protracted trial, the appeal, then this revision and he was sufficiently penalised for the offence he committed and prayed that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The prayer of Shri Surendra Singh is very modest. I think no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence after a decade of the occurrence. The substantial ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I think no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence after a decade of the occurrence. The substantial ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant, this revision is dismissed.