SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 24. 7. 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, kawardha in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2006 arising out of judgment dated 11. 3. 2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 479/1995 (State of chhattisgarh v. Manoj Kumar, changed criminal Case No. 907/2006 of the Court of C. J. M. , Kawardha) by the Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Mungeli, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant, has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) A perusal of the record would show that the applicant was convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- Conviction sentence u/s 452 IPC r.. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional imprisonment more. u/s 323 IPC r.. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional imprisonment more. u/s 294 IPC fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, 5 days additional imprisonment more. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are that on 10. 6. 1995 at about 12 noon, the applicant went to the house of complainant Sevaram (P. W. 1) and knocked his doors and said him that he is being called by the Sarpanch. On this Sevaram denied and replied that he will go only when he will be called by the Kotwar. The allegations are that thereafter the applicant forcibly pushed and broke open the doors and he entered into the house of complainant, abused him and assaulted him with the help of a lath. A report of the incident was lodged by the complainant in kunda Police Station from where the complainant was sent for medical examination and after due enquiry, the charge sheet was filed. ( 4 ) THE learned trial judge, after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforementioned. On an appeal to the Court of sessions, the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial Court. ( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant only restricted his arguments to the question of sentences awarded to the applicant. He did not press the revision on merits assailing the conviction awarded to him. ( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant only restricted his arguments to the question of sentences awarded to the applicant. He did not press the revision on merits assailing the conviction awarded to him. ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits, the conviction awarded by the trial Court under the aforementioned sections of. P. C. and confirmed by the appellate Court are hereby upheld. ( 7 ) ON the question of sentence awarded to the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 24. 7. 2006. e. , the date of judgment passed by the Appellate Court and in this manner he has already undergone the imprisonment for a period of about 4 months. His further submission is that though the separate jail sentences have been awarded u/s 452 and 323 of IPC but the Court has not directed for running the sentences concurrently. He submits that the entire amount of fine has already been deposited by the appicant, therefore, if his sentences are directed to run concurrently and the sentence awarded u/s 452 is reduced to 4 months instead of 6 months, it would serve the ends of justice. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned State counsel opposes this prayer. ( 9 ) I have gone through the records of the courts below. It comes in the evidence of complainant Sevaram (P. W. 1) that he cannot say as to why this applicant has assaulted him. This goes to show that, in fact, there was nothing premeditated by the applicant and what has happened in a spur of moment when the complainant denied to go to the Sarpanch on the call of the applicant. Another aspect is that section 452 says about the house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt, assault etc. The scenario of this offence would show that there was no preparation proved on the part of the applicant for causing hurt or assault to the complainant and what has happened on the spot was an outcome of act started and ended at the said place only. ( 10 ) THE severity of punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. ( 10 ) THE severity of punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. However, it shall be subject to the limitations of statutory panel provisions regarding the slave of minimum and maximum punishment which can be awarded for a particular offence, which shall further be subject to the limitations of sentence of fine, if any, as directed by the statute and which, in the opinion of the Court, would serve the ends of justice. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, in the opinion of this Court, the prayer made on the quantum of sentences and the manner of their suffering appear to be genuine and worth consideration. The same is allowed. ( 12 ) IT is directed and ordered that the jail sentence awarded u/s 452 IPC is reduced to 4 months from 6 months and the other jail sentence awarded u/s 323 is kept as it is. However, it is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the calculations shall be made on this basis. The amounts of fine are kept as it is. ( 13 ) THE revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the concerned court for its necessary compliance. Petition allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .