Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-11-1993 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1988 by the Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawadah confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Nawadah in G.R. Case No. 402 of 1985 (Tr. No. 174 of 1986). All the petitioners had faced trial for offences under Sections 341/323/325/379 of the I.P.C. After trial in the original Court, petitioner No. 1 has been convicted under Secs. 323/379/341 of the I.P.C. Petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 have been convicted only under Sec. 341 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment. Petitioner No. 3 Brahamdeo Yadav has been convicted both under Sec. 341, I.P.C. and also under Sec. 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 325, I.P.C. 2. The trial Courts judgment had been assailed in appeal, as mentioned above, but the appellate Court also after reappraisal of evidence independently came to the same finding and confirmed the judgment of conviction imposed differently against the accused-persons, as mentioned. 3. While admitting this revision petition, a Bench of this Court did not allow the admission on merit but it was admitted only on the point of sentence vide order dated 9-5-1994. 4. On consultation of the lower Court records, it appears that Briksh Yadav and Brahamdeo Yadav had already remained in custody for more than three months while the other two petitioners have remained in custody for about fifteen days. Practically for the offence committed the sentence imposed by the trial Court cannot be said to be severe and harsh but the fact remains that the occurrence took place long back in the year, 1985 and for this past one and half decade, the petitioners have to serve the rigors of the criminal proceeding. In that view of the matter, the sentence imposed by the Courts below is modified to the extent that the petitioners could not go back to the custody again for serving the balance part of the sentences imposed. Rather in lieu of it, they would pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 each to be deposited within a period of four weeks from this date with the trial Court. In default, they shall have to serve the balance of the sentences imposed. Rather in lieu of it, they would pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 each to be deposited within a period of four weeks from this date with the trial Court. In default, they shall have to serve the balance of the sentences imposed. If the fine is realised, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the victims. 5. With this modification in sentence, the revision petition is rejected.