JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 5.10.1990 of the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which he upheld the conviction and sentence dated 5.12.1989 recorded against the accused by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Satya Devi complainant in her statement to the police has stated that her husband Bir Chand and the husbands brother Hari Chand live in village Sirsiwala with their families. Both are working as Chakki-fitters. It has been further stated that on the day of occurrence, Bir Chand, the husband of Satya Devi, was away for about two weeks and she went to the house of Harnek Singh, who is a Member Panchayat of the village, to purchase straw. It has been further alleged that the accused called her inside the room and then tried to outrage her modesty. She raised an alarm and managed to get out of the clutches of the accused. On 25.3.1983 Bir Chand made an application to the police, which was signed by Jangir Singh Sarpanch, Lal Singh, Member Panchayat, Bhagwan Singh, Ex-Member Panchayat, Darshan Singh and Bant Singh. First Information Report was registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Shri Jora Singh, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa convicted the accused vide order dated 5.12.1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Jude, Bathinda, who upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa. The present petitioner/accused is now before this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. No one is present for the accused. Shri A.S. Rai, Joint Director Prosecution, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh, is present for the State of Punjab. 5. I have gone through the judgements of the Courts below and perused the record. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Satya Devi, prosecutrix, as PW-1, Bant Singh, her husbands elder brothers son as PW-2, Bir Chand husband, as PW-3, Jangir Singh, Sarpanch of the village as PW-4, Sub Inspector Bhagwant Singh (retired) as PW-5 and Inspector Bhagwan Singh (retired) as PW-6. 7. Bant Singh PW-2 and Jangir Singh PW-4 have fully corroborated the version put forward by Satya Devi complainant. 7. Bant Singh PW-2 and Jangir Singh PW-4 have fully corroborated the version put forward by Satya Devi complainant. There are no contradictions in the statement of Satya Devi complainant. Though there is a delay of two weeks in recording of the First Information Report, but one cannot lose sight of the fact that Satya Devi had informed the Sarpanch and the Member Panchayat on the same day of occurrence. She, being a woman, had depended on these persons either to resolve the matter or then report it to the police as her husband was not available. The delay of two weeks has, thus, been explained. Further after going through the evidence, it is amply clear that there is no enmity between the complainant and the accused. Thus, the theory of false implication also cannot be taken into consideration. 8. Going through the judgments of the Courts below, it seems that the petitioner is an old man of about 62 years and now he must be nearing the age of 72 years. It will not be in the interest of justice to send him back to jail after such a long time. The conviction of the accused is upheld and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Order accordingly.