Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.8.2000 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge VIII. Munger in Cr. Appeal No. 124/98, confirming the order passed by the trial Court dt. 24.6.98 in GR case No. 72/90, trial No. 871/98. 2. It has been submitted that all the accused persons of the case have been acquitted by the appellate Court and the petitioner was held guilty under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months. However. I find that other accused persons were acquitted because evidence was recorded against them in their absence. So. that evidence could not be used against them. So far revisionist is concerned, evidence was recorded in his presence. So it was legal and valid. So far findings of facts are concerned, I do not think this court will legitimately interfere because that was based on evidence on record and both the courts below are concurrent in their findings. Charge under Section 325. IPC fails because the doctor was not examined. So. he was held guilty for the offence under Section 323, IPC. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner remained in custody for one month after judgment of the appellants court and before release from this Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I think a fine of Rs. 1,000/- shall meet the ends of justice. So. maintaining the order of conviction, the sentence of six months of RI is converted into a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default to undergo SI for one month. The fine if realised shall be paid to the informant, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment in the lower court. 4. With the above modification in the sentence, this revision is dismissed.