JUDGMENT 1. - Since the controversy involved in both the petitions arises out of common facts and same judgment, hence same are being decided by this common Juagment. 2. These two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 12th of August 2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Ajmer (Rajasthan) (for short the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 20/07 (336/06) whereby he partly modified the order dated 28th of November 2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.3, Ajmer (for short the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 479/2005 and convicted the petitioner Praveen @ Montu for the offence under Section 454 I.P.C. and sentenced him for the period of three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the accused petitioner Ram Gopal has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced him for the period of one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 3. Mr. M.K. Kaushik counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Praveen @ Montu orally submits that his prayer is only to the extent of commutation of the period already undergone by the accused petitioner in subsequent/second case as per section 427 Cr.PC. as accused petitioner Praveen @ Montu has undergone the period of conviction in both the cases jointly (for second/subsequent case accused petitioner Praveen @ Montu has undergone period of conviction in first case) and he does not want to argue the matter on merits because in the instant cases the accused petitioner has already undergone the period of conviction awarded by the courts below. 4. The prayer of Mr. Kaushik seems to be genuine and is thus accepted. 5. So far as, petitioner Ram Gopal is concerned, Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Advocate, appearing on his behalf has drawn the attention of this Court upon the judgment reported in 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 263 titled as Nahra Ram v. State of Rajasthan which reads as under : "Penal Code-Sec. 411-Sentence-8 years already passed- Undergone sentence of 21 days-Held sentence undergone will meet ends of justice." 6. Prayer of Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Advocate, appearing on his behalf has drawn the attention of this Court upon the judgment reported in 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 263 titled as Nahra Ram v. State of Rajasthan which reads as under : "Penal Code-Sec. 411-Sentence-8 years already passed- Undergone sentence of 21 days-Held sentence undergone will meet ends of justice." 6. Prayer of Mr. Yadav, Advocate is that the accused petitioner Ram Gopal: be given similar treatment as is given in the Judgment of Nahra Ram (supra) because in the instant case the accused petitioner Ram Gopal has remained in judicial lock up near about two months and the age of the petitioner is 41 years old, the petitioner is having two children who are of marriageable age and he is only the responsible family members to look after them. 7. In view of above, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the courts below to accused-petitioner Praveen @ Montu but at the same time, I direct the concerned authorities to commute the period undergone by the accused petitioner Praveen @ Montu in subsequent/second case, as undergone by him in first case as per Section 427 Cr.P.C. If the concerned authority finds place that accused-petitioner Praveen @ Montu had undergone total period of conviction in both the cases then he should be released from the custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. 8. So far as, accused petitioner Ramgopal is concerned, he has remained in judicial lock up near about two months. The ends of justice will meet, if the accused-petitioner Ramgopal is released from the custody for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 9. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 I.P.C. is maintained but the sentence awarded to him for the said offence is reduced for the period already undergone by him. But at the same time I increase the fine of amount from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. If the petitioner has deposited Rs. 3,000/- in such circumstances, such amount shall be deducted from 15,000/-. In default of payment of fine the accused petitioner Ram Gopal shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 10. Both these revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. 3,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. If the petitioner has deposited Rs. 3,000/- in such circumstances, such amount shall be deducted from 15,000/-. In default of payment of fine the accused petitioner Ram Gopal shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 10. Both these revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. The petitioner Ram Gopal is directed to deposit the amount of fine within a period of three months before the trial court and same should be paid to the complainant namely Abdul Halim Kaji.Revisions Disposed of as above. *******