JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the judgment 8.3.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Cr. Case No. 284/1994 by which he convicted and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment and had also further ordered that out of fine Rs. 200/- would be paid to the complainant and the judgment dated 7.11.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by which he has confirmed the order of the conviction and maintained the sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.6.1994 Smt. Laxmi submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhuru stating therein that she was sleeping in his house along with his child Chandrakala, suddenly one boy came and lift her petticoat. She woke up and saw a boy Liliya S/o Shri Om Prakash Chaursiya. She caught his hands then this her petticoat was torn. On her hue and cry, accused-petitioner ran away. Upon the said report the police registered the case for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. After investigation the police has filed challan against the accused-petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused-petitioner, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.3. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 4 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.4. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 8.3.1996 convicted the accused-petitioner as indicated above. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the accused-petitioner and the same was also dismissed on 7.11.1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid orders and judgments of the learned Courts below dated 7.11.1996 and 8.3.1996, the accused-petitioner preferred this criminal revision petition.6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel Mr. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the accused-petitioner and the same was also dismissed on 7.11.1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid orders and judgments of the learned Courts below dated 7.11.1996 and 8.3.1996, the accused-petitioner preferred this criminal revision petition.6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand appearing on behalf of accused-petitioner made a request to the Court that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that the sentence should be reduced for the period already undergone. Mr. Anoop Dhand urged this Court that the occurrence took place on 22.6.1994 which is 14 years ago from today approximately. The accused-petitioner has remained in judicial lock up for 3 days and he is having family and children who are marriageable.7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner.8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that it is not a case where the accused-petitioner should be sent back to jail.9. In the result, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the Courts below. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone confinement, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him for the period already undergone by him in confinement.10. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below dated 7.11.1996 and 8.3.1996 are modified to the extent as indicated above.This criminal revision petition is partly allowed. Revision petition partly allowed. *******