JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. The single petitioner before this court stands convicted under Section 325 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. According to the prosecution case on 4.3.1987 when the informant went to ease himself he saw the petitioner along with three other accused persons digging the earth from a piece of railway land over which he had sown khesari. The informant objected to the accused taking earth from there for constructing their huts. This led to an altercation following which the informant was assaulted by the accused by fists and slaps and was also hit with a stick causing fracture of his right ulna bone. 3. At the conclusion of the trial the trial court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the other three accused who were acquitted but the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. In appeal, the appellate court below confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgments of the courts below, I find that the petitioner's conviction has been arrived at on a proper appraisal of the evidence and it warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The conviction of the petitioner is accordingly confirmed. However, on the question of sentence it may be noted that the occurrence took place on 4.3.1987, that is to say more than 11 years ago. It is true that the occurrence led to the fracture of the right hand of the informant but its genesis lay in a very trivial dispute. The petitioner has remained in jail for about ten days. He came out of the jail about two years ago when he was granted bail on the direction of this court at the time of admission of this Criminal Revision on 20.6.1996. 5. Having regard to the long lapse of time, the nature and the manner of occurrence. I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner back to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him but direct him to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him but direct him to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine must be paid within two months from today failing which the trial court will take him is custody to make him undergo the sentence of imprisonment as directed by this court. 6. In the result this Criminal Revision is dismissed subject to the modification in the petitioner's sentence.