JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar dated 13.12.1999 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner. Accused-petitioner faced trial under section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of Smt. Parmender Kaur on 3.2.1994 while she alongwith her husband and brother and the accused-petitioner was travelling in truck No. RDB-G-0642. 2. The story of the prosecution was that Parmender Kaur is a nurse and was posted at H.C. Sub Centre 3-JJ. She was with her husband on the date of occurrence. Her brother Jaswant Singh was the driver on the said truck came alongwith Mandhir Singh who was the owner of the truck. Both of them took food with Parmender Kaur and her husband. Jaswant Singh told that since his father was not keeping well they should visit him. Smt. Parmender Kaur also requested her husband to accompany and then all of them travelled in the truck. They started at about 6.30 p.m. for Ganganagar. Smt. Parmender Kaur and her husband were sitting on the rear seat behind the driver's seat. Accused-petitioner also sat on that seat nearby Parmender Kaur while Jaswant Singh was 'driving the truck. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner taking benefit of the darkness in the truck started molesting Smt. Parmender Kaur. He not only pressed her breasts but touched other part of her body including her private part. Ultimately Smt. Parmender Kaur slapped the petitioner and then her husband came to know about the event. The truck was stopped, accused-petitioner ran away leaving one of his shoes in the truck. 3. Report was lodged by the husband of Smt. Parmender Kaur and after investigation challan was submitted before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar. Accused-petitioner denied the allegation when accusation was read over to him on 5.9.1997. Then Smt. Parmender Kaur, Sukhdev Singh and Chhotu Ram were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Jaswant Singh could not be examined as he died when the trial was going on. The defence of the accused-petitioner was of the enmity with the witnesses but the same was not accepted by the trial Court. Accused-petitioner was convicted for offence under section 354 IPC and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. On appeal the same was confirmed. Hence this revision. 4. Accused-petitioner was convicted for offence under section 354 IPC and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. On appeal the same was confirmed. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly did not challenge the conviction on merits because Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Math Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC page 456 , has observed that in its revisional jurisdiction the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. He was also not able to point out any glaring feature in the case which may give benefit to the accused-petitioner. 5. His only contention is that the sentence is excessive and that the benefit of probation could be given to the petitioner either under Probation of Offenders Act or under section 360 Cr.P.C. as no previous conviction is alleged against the petitioner. He relied on Dilip v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr.L.J. page 72 , in which the age of accused-petitioner-Dilip was only 17 years at the time of committing the offence. Therefore, this citation does not give any benefit to the petitioner who was 42 years of age at the time of committing the offence. 6. Then the learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances when the offence took place in the year 1994 and the case is being decided finally after six years, the sentence of jail already undergone is more than sufficient. 7. 6. Then the learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances when the offence took place in the year 1994 and the case is being decided finally after six years, the sentence of jail already undergone is more than sufficient. 7. From the record I find that the petitioner was sent to jail on 13.12.1999 and since then he is in custody. That period comes to more than 21/2 months. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has been undergoing the mental tension for six years, I feel that the jail sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone but the sentence of fine should be increased. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 354 IPC IPC his sentence of jail is reduced to the period already undergone but the fine of Rs. 100/- is increased to a fine of Rs. 2,500/-. In default of payment of fine he will undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Fine, if realised, shall be paid to Smt. Parmender Kaur.Revision partly allowed. *******