G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 18-1-96 passed by the 1st Addl, Sessions Judge, Bareilly, whereby he had dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 145/95 filed by the accused. That appeal arose out of judgment dated 28- 6-95, passed by Addl. C. J. M. Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 9 of 95, whereby the learned Addl. C. J. M. held the accused guilty on a charge under Section 4201pc and sentenced him to under R. I. for a period of three years and further to pay a fine of Rs. 36,000. "on failure to pay the fine, one years simple imprisonment was awarded. Out of the fine so recovered, a sum of Rs. 35,090 would be paid to the com plainant Smt. Kusum Agarwal by way of compensation. 2. The accused had agreed to supply foods at concessional rate and received Rs. 35,090 as earnest money. All of sudden, he closed his shop on 11-7-93. This way, he has defrauded the complainant to the tune of Rs. 35,090. 3. The complainant was examined as P. W 1 she narrated the entire story. P. W. 2,s. 1. Gyan prakash is the Investigating Officer. 4. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. has said that he was simply an employee of the firm, known as Subham and had not received the money. 5. Smt. Kusum Agarwal, in his state ment, has detailed the payments made by her and her relatives to the tune of Rs. 35,090. She has given the details of goods, which offered to be purchased. 6. After a close analysis of the evidence on the record, the learned trial court found that the accused had duped the com plainant. He convicted and sentenced the accused as noted above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 8. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. I find that there is no force in this revision and it deserves to be dismissed, except with the modifications detailed below ; The finding of fact have not been challenged before me by its learned Counsel. 9. The learned Counsel for the revisionist urged that the accused is in jail for more than 2-1/2 years and he is ready to pay the fine of Rs. 36,000 as levied by the learned trial court. 10. 9. The learned Counsel for the revisionist urged that the accused is in jail for more than 2-1/2 years and he is ready to pay the fine of Rs. 36,000 as levied by the learned trial court. 10. Looking to (he fact that the accused is already in jail for 2-1/2 years, I find that the sentence should be confined to the period already undergone by the accused. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. 11. Accordingly the revision is dis missed with the modification that the sen tence is confined to the period already un dergone by the accused. The sentence of fine is maintained. It shall be recovered from the accused within a period of one month from today. Out of the fine so recovered a sum of Rs. 35,090 would be paid to the complainant byway of compensation. 12. It is made clear that before releas ing the accused, the learned C. J. M. con cerned shall take two sureties of Rs. 36,000 each and a personal bond in the like amount to his satisfaction. Revision dismissed. .