VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The petitioner were tried for offences punishable under sections 336, 337, 504 and 506 all read with 34 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at PUNE. He found them guilty for an offence punishable under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 15 days R.I.. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1989 in Sessions Court, Pune, against the aforesaid convictions and sentences. The said appeal was decided on 4-6-1992 by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. The learned Judge altered the conviction of the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 from section 326 to one under section 324 I.P.C.. He, however, maintained the same sentence which was awarded to them for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. The Appellate Court, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence of petitioner No. 3 Arjun Rajaram Awachetty for the offence under section 326 I.P.C.. 2.The prosecution case in brief is that, on 2-6-85 at about 2.30 p.m., petitioner No. 3 and his family members picked up a quarrel with the wife of the complainant Vishnu Babanrao Kshirsagar on account of parking of the scooter and also abused and threatened her. It is said that she had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint and when the complainant was about to go to the police station, the petitioners threatened to kill him. They broke his empty bottles which were on a handcart and pelted pieces of the same, resulting in the complainant and his brother's grand daughter sustaining injuries. It is said that as a result of petitioner No. 3 viz. Arjun Rajaram Awachetty hurling a broken piece of glass, the complainant had completely lost vision of his left eye. It is said that petitioner No. 1 was caught on the spot but the other petitioners managed to run away. 3.After the usual F.I.R., medical examination of victims and investigation, the petitioners were chargesheeted for offences mentioned in para 1 and their trial and appeals were disposed off in the manners stated in the said para. Hence this revision. 4.I have heard Mr. S.G. Surana for the petitioners and Mr. D.T. Palekar for the respondent. I have also perused the impugned judgments and the record and proceedings. In my view, the conviction of the petitioners Nos. Hence this revision. 4.I have heard Mr. S.G. Surana for the petitioners and Mr. D.T. Palekar for the respondent. I have also perused the impugned judgments and the record and proceedings. In my view, the conviction of the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as modified by the Appellate Court, is legally correct. However, I feel that, the instant case does not call for petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 being awarded a jail sentence. In my view, a sentence of fine would met the ends of justice. As regards petitioner No. 3 I find that his conviction and sentence warrants no interference. 5.So far as the involvement of the petitioners in the incident is concerned, the same is based on sufficient evidence, including that of the two injured witnesses viz. the complainant and his brother's grant daughter Manisha. I have gone through the evidence of the said witnesses and I find that the same inspires confidence. In addition, I find that the testimony of the said witnesses viz. police constable viz. Sudhir and police constable Gaikwad, P.W.'s 2 and 7 respectively. The said constables are independent witnesses. The medical evidence also corroborates the same. 6.Since the evidence was that the broken piece of glass hurled by petitioner No. .3 Arjun Rajaram Awachetty struck the left eye of the complainant, resulting in a permanent loss of vision, the Appellate Court was justified in sustaining his conviction and sentence for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. Since the other three petitioners did not cause any grievous injury, the Appellate Court was justified in converting their convictions from 326 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C.. This leaves me with only one question viz. that of sentence. Since the petitioner Arjun Rajaram Awachetty has caused grievous injury to the left eye of the complainant which resulted in his completely losing the vision of the said eye, the sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to him for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. cannot be said to be excessive. However, as the other three petitioners i.e. petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4, only caused simple injuries and the incident took place more than 12 years ago, they do not deserve a sentence of jail and a sentence of fine instead will satisfy the ends of justice. 7.In the result, this revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed. However, as the other three petitioners i.e. petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4, only caused simple injuries and the incident took place more than 12 years ago, they do not deserve a sentence of jail and a sentence of fine instead will satisfy the ends of justice. 7.In the result, this revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed. I confirm the conviction of petitioner No. 3 Arjun Rajaram Awachetty for offence under section 326 I.P.C. as also the sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- awarded to him thereunder. I also confirm the convictions of petitioners Mr. Shakil Noor Mohammed Shaikh, Mr. Ramesh Satyanarayan Gone and Mr. Pandurang Rajaram Awachetty for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. but I reduce their jail sentence of one year's R.I. to the period already undergone by them, provided in lieu thereof, each of them deposits a fine of Rs. 7,500/- within six months from today in the trial Court, failing which, the defaulting applicant (petitioner) would undergo the substantive sentence for the offence under section 324 I.P.C.. The fine deposited by the said petitioners would be paid as compensation to the complainant Vishnu Babanrao Kshirsagar, P.W. 1 and in case, he is not alive, to his legal heirs. As soon as the fine is deposited, the trial Court would inform Vishnu Babanrao Kshirsagar/ the legal heirs, as the case may be, about this compensation. I may indicate that the fine imposed by me on these petitioners is in addition to the fine of Rs. 500/- which has already been imposed on them. In case these petitioners do not pay the fine within the stipulated time, they shall be taken into custody to serve out their sentences. Petitioner Arjun Rajaram Awachetty is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. Rule is disposed off in the aforesaid manner. It shall be open to the trial Court to accept the fine on production of a certified copy of this judgment which in case an application is made, shall be issued within 10 weeks from today. Application partly allowed.