Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Both these revision applications arise out of the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. These applications have been admitted only on the question of sentence. 3. Petitioners, namely, Suraj Chaudhary, Arjun Chaudhary, Dhanukdhari Chaudhary and Sagar Ram have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and three months, respectively whereas petitioner Ganga Ram has been convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, three months and six months, respectively, by the appellate Court. The rest of the petitioners though were convicted for that offence but, they were released on execution of the bound under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. From the lower Court records, it appears that these petitioners have already executed bonds. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that it is a case of the year 1993 and the occurrence had taken place on account of the land dispute and the petitioners have already suffered imprisonment for about a month. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that seeing the age of the case and period of detention of the petitioners, the ends of justice will be met if, the sentences passed against them are reduced. 5. I have perused the impugned judgments. It appears that both the parties fought on the question of land dispute and the occurrence had taken place some time in the year 1983. It also appears that, the petitioners have remained in custody for some time and after lapse of 16 years, it would not be proper to send the petitioners to jail to serve out the remainder part of the sentence. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the sentence passed against the petitioners to the period already suffered by them, as indicated above and with the aforesaid modification in sentence, these applications are dismissed. 7. So far as other petitioners are concerned, they have already executed bonds, as directed by the Court below under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. I, therefore, do not find any merit in these applications. They are also dismissed.