N. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur on 8. 7. 1992 in Criminal Appeal No. 26/90 whereby he dismissed the appeal, modifying the sentence of imprisonment of the applicants. ( 2 ) THE applicants were prosecuted before the J. M. F. C, Navgao in Criminal Case No. 303/88 on the allegation that in the intervening night of 1. 7. 1988 when the complainant Ramkripal, P. W. 1 was sleeping in his house, the applicants came there armed with an axe and barchi, and applicant No. 1 assaulted the complainant by an axe. On halla, villagers arrive and the applicants escaped. Complainant Ram Kripal, P. W. 1 lodged a report before the police in the same night, on the basis of which FIR, was drawn up and the investigation proceeded. Police after investigation submitted, chargesheet, against the applicants. ( 3 ) THE trial of the applicants commence before the J. M. F. C. , Navgao who on consideration of the evidence convicted the applicant No. 1 Kuman u/s. 323 IPC and applicant No. 2 u/s. 323/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for one year. ( 4 ) ON appeal, Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the applicants, to undergo S. I. for 3 months, and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo S. I. for further one month. ( 5 ) SHRI Arun Kochar counsel for the. applicants has contended that both the applicants are remained in jail for 46 days, from the order of their conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. No previous conviction of the applicants have been proved by the prosecution, nor the applicants have any criminal antecedents. The applicant No. 1 Kuman is 22 yrs. of age and applicant No. 2 Kashiram is 35 yrs. of age, but no reason has been assigned by the Court below for not enlarging the applicants on Probation of Offenderts Act. The applicants have also deposited the amount of fine. ( 6 ) IT appears, that the alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 1. 7. 1988, and no useful purpose would be served by enlarging the applicants on Probation of Offenders Act, as they have already remained in custody for 46 days. The applicants have also deposited the amount of fine. ( 6 ) IT appears, that the alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 1. 7. 1988, and no useful purpose would be served by enlarging the applicants on Probation of Offenders Act, as they have already remained in custody for 46 days. I think, the substantial ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment of the applicants, are reduced to the period already undergone by them. With this modification, in the sentence of the applicants, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed with modification in sentence. .