JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the Judgment and order dated 1.11.1993 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg in criminal Appeal no. 26/1989 whereby said appeal was dismissed upholding the conviction order of trial court dated 9.11.1989. The learned trial court convicted the accused petitioners Pooran, Ratan and Thakurlal for offence under Secs. 147, 323, 341 and 325/149 IPC and accused petitioners Kalian, Ganga, Shyam, and Amar Singh for offence under Secs. 147, 323, 341 and 325 IPC and for offences under Secs. 147 and 323 IPC each accused has been sentenced for three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month; for offence under Section 341 IPC, each accused has been sentenced for Rs. 200/- fine, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days and for offence under Section 325 IPC, accused Kalian, Ganga Sahai and Amarsingh and for offence under Section 325/149 IPC accused Pooran, Ratan and Thakurlal have been sentenced for 3 years, rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg has convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners as under (i) Accused petitioners Gangashyam, Amar & Kakllan were convicted for offences u/s. 147, 323 IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I. Each. (ii) They were also convicted for offences under Section 341 IPC and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days S.I. (iii) They were also convicted for offence under Section 325 JPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' R.l. And fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' S.l. (iv) So far accused petitioners Thakur, Pooran and Ratan are concerned, they were convicted for offence under Section 147, 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months' S.l. and fine of Rs. 100/-each and in default, of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional S.l. (v) They were also convicted for offences under Section 341 IPC and directed to pay fine of Rs. 100/-each and in default, of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional S.l. (v) They were also convicted for offences under Section 341 IPC and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' S.l. (vi) They were also convicted for offence under Section 325/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.l. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in defaults of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' S.l. (vii) The court had also directed that out of amount of fine so recovered, Rs. 6000/- shall be paid to complainant Nihal Singh. (viii) All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, it was made clear that the period already undergone by the accused petitioners in judicial custody shall be reduced from the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners. 3. While arguing the present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to urge before this court that the incident had taken place on 31.7.83 when the complainant had caused damage to the common boundary wall of the agriculture field and in order to protect their property as a measure of private defence, there was a fight between both the sides and in that process, the complainants may have suffered the injuries. She also pointed out that in the cross FIR filed by present accused petitioners, the present complainant Nihal Singh S/o Bhambholi and Surajmal S/o Nihal Singh were convicted by the trial court under Secs. 323 and 447 IPC but they were released on probation vide order dated 16.4.1996 by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & J.M. Deeg. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes these submissions and submits that in revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and the plea of private defence having not been urged before the court below, cannot be raised for the first time before this court in revisional jurisdiction. He also submits that conviction of complainant in cross case under Secs. 323 and 447 IPC is also of no consequence and the prosecution in the present case has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused petitioners had caused injuries upon those two persons in the agriculture field of the complainants and, therefore, the courts below have rightly convicted these accused petitioners for those offences and no interference is called for. 323 and 447 IPC is also of no consequence and the prosecution in the present case has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused petitioners had caused injuries upon those two persons in the agriculture field of the complainants and, therefore, the courts below have rightly convicted these accused petitioners for those offences and no interference is called for. He also opposed the plea of reduction of sentence by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record and impugned orders, this court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of conviction of learned courts below, who on proper appreciation of evidence before them, found the accused petitioners guilty of alleged offences and convicted them. Such concurrent findings do not call for any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. 6. However, on the period of sentence, it appears that the incident being of very old time i.e. about 23 years old by now and the sentence of accused petitioners having already been suspended by the court at the time of admission of revision petition on 10.11.1993, there appears to be no justification for maintaining the period of sentence as awarded by the learned appellate court and in view of advanced age of accused petitioners by now, the interest of justice would be met if the period of sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. The fine imposed by the courts below is however maintained. 7. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******