Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. The petitioners along with some others were tired under Sections 506, 427 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh held them guilty under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to further undergo R.I. for a period of six months. They were also convicted under Section 427 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to further undergo R.I. for three months. They were also convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The substantive sentences were, however ordered to run concurrently. 2. In appeal that came to be preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the sentence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was reduced to one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months and sentence awarded under Sections 427 and 148 IPC was maintained. 3. In this revision challenge is to the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court and the appellate Court vide order dated 6.10.1987 and 11.11.1988 respectively. 4. Briefly put, the prosecution case has been that in the area of the town of Mandi Gobindgarh in three similar incidents, occurring between 4 PM to 4.30 PM on March 13, 1983, three trucks were damaged to compel the owners drivers of the trucks to pay five per cent commission to the petitioners herein. There is no need at all to go into the details of the case and the way and manner the prosecution brought home offences against the petitioners. 5. All that could be urged by the learned counsel representing the petitioners in support of its revision during the course of arguments is that the incident pertains to the year 1983 and the petitioners have already undergone protracted trial spanned over a period of 17 years and it will be in the fitness of things to let off the petitioners on probation under the provisions of Probations of Offenders Act. The contention of the petitioner can be accepted but only half way through. The contention of the petitioner can be accepted but only half way through. It is no doubt true that the petitioners herein and facing a protracted trial for a period of about 17 years and some of them were too young and others were old as well and all of them were fast offenders. Yet, fact cannot be lost sight of is that in their endeavour to get illegal consideration which was naturally refused, they damaged three trucks. In considered view of this Court ends of justice would be amply met if while maintaining their conviction, their sentence is reduced to three months R.I. under all counts which shall, of course run concurrently. In the fitness of things, I also impose upon the petitioners fine of Rs. 2000/- each which shall be paid to the owners of the damaged trucks. For non- payment of fine which is imposed by this Court, they would undergo the sentence as ordered by the Courts below. 6. This revision is, thus partly allowed. Revision partly allowed.