A. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is presented against the judgment and order dated 3rd of Feb, 1992 passed by lind Additional Sessions Judge of Shivpuri, whereby the petitioners have been convicted u/section 9 (1) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and were sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months R. I. The conviction of the petitioners was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohri on 29th of Jan, 1987. It was confirmed in appeal by the aforesaid order. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Shri R. K. Sharma, and Shri B. D. Jam, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the record. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that the two petitioners had struck a peacock, the national bird, in their field, Peacock is the national bird and the offence committed by the petitioners was punishable u/section 9 (1) read with Section 51 of the Wilf Life Protection Act, 1972. The Trial Court had recorded evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioners had committed the offence as mentioned above they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. Petitioner had preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed. ( 4 ) IN this revision-petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners simply pressed this revision on the point of sentence. He urged that the petitioners have already served 12 days in prison. They had deposited the fine imposed by the Trail Court. After a lapse of several years, he prays that 12 days imprisonment may be taken to be sufficient. It was a case of mistake by the petitioners who struck the peacock who was the national bird. There was no intention to kill the peacock. It was by chance, when a blow given to the peacock which was grazing the field, resulted in its death. In these circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that several years have elapsed, the period of 12 days imprisonment already undergone is taken to be sufficient. The fine has already been deposited. Except in the modification of the sentence of period of imprisonment already undergone being taken to be sufficient and the fine being deposited, the petitioners need not further undergo imprisonment. The fine has already been deposited. Except in the modification of the sentence of period of imprisonment already undergone being taken to be sufficient and the fine being deposited, the petitioners need not further undergo imprisonment. ( 5 ) EXCEPT in the modification of the sentence as aforesaid, the revision is dismissed. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Revision dismissed, except modification in sentence. .