Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 5th May, 2001, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Cr. Appeal No. 80 of 1989 confirming the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court in its judgment dated 17th July, 1989 in G.R. Case No. 1286 of 1985. The revisionist was convicted under Secs. 353, 504 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months, one month and one month respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The revisionists lawyer submitted that the P.Ws. failed to support the alleged obstruction to the functioning of the Circle Officer/informant, P.W. 3 Moreover, the revisionist was also a member of the meeting of Panchayat Samittee presided over by Pramukh P.W. 1, who had not told the police that the revisionist had appeared in the chamber of the circle officer and had either abused him or obstructed him in his official functioning. Whatever may be the case, certain defence Exts. A, B series and C themselves indicate that there was some sort of an occurrence involving the revisionist and the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer, P.W. 3, did support the alleged occurrence in the chamber or in the hall where he was conducting meeting of his employees. So from the over all circumstances on the record, it is apparent that there was of course, some sort of occurrence in which the circle officer must have been subjected to some kind of insinuations at the hands of the revisionist. This very act of the revisionist would amount to atleast temporary obstruction to the Circle Officer in his official functioning. So the offence under Secs. 448, 353 and 504 shall stand established. The two Courts below recorded concurrent findings with respect to the guilt of the revisionist. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this revision does not have much scope for interfering with the findings of the two Courts below. 3. However, in view of the fact that there was no previous history to any conviction of the revisionist. I think that the sentence of fine shall meet the ends of justice. So the sentence of composite fine of Rs. 500.00 for all the offences shall meet the ends of justice. In th result this revision is dismissed by modifying the sentence and maintaining the order of conviction. I think that the sentence of fine shall meet the ends of justice. So the sentence of composite fine of Rs. 500.00 for all the offences shall meet the ends of justice. In th result this revision is dismissed by modifying the sentence and maintaining the order of conviction. The fine shall be paid within three months from the date of communication of this order in the Court below. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist shall under go S.I. for 15 days.