JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel- for the parties. 2. This revision petition, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, is directed against the order of his conviction and sentence under Section 392, I.P.C., to undergo 5 years RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional SI, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court also. 3. The revision petition was preferred with a delay of 322 days, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed for condonation of delay contending therein that on the date of his conviction by the trial Court he was confined in jail in another case, therefore, his appeal before the appellate Court was preferred through his Advocate. The personal appearance of accused is not required in an appeal, therefore, he could not know about dismissal of his appeal. It is further contended that his father is an old man and when his younger brother, who is a student, came to meet him then the petitioner told him to enquire about the present position of the case and when ho came to know about dismissal of his appeal then he instructed his counsel to file the revision petition. 4. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. 5. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed..The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 6. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly and rightly did not challenge the order of conviction as there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that accused committed a crime and his only submission is that the petitioner is in jail since 3.3.2003, therefore, he has already remained in jail for four years five months and twenty-eight days, whereas the sentence awarded against the petitioner in the present case is five years rigorous imprisonment, therefore, his prayer is that the sentence of imprisonment of 5 years may be reduced to a period of sentence already undergone by him. He further submits that the amount of fine may also be reduced in view of the fact that he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for about four years five months and twenty-eight days. He further submits that the amount of fine may also be reduced in view of the fact that he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for about four years five months and twenty-eight days. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, therefore, it is not necessary to refer and discuss the facts of the case. I also find that there is concurrent finding of fact about commission of offence by the accused, therefore, the order of conviction does not call for any interference by this Court in this revision petition. 8. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice would meet in case the sentence of imprisonment of 5 years awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court be reduced to a period of four years five months and twenty-eight days, already undergone by the petitioner, with reduction of fine from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of conviction of the petitioner is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 5 years RI to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him i.e. four years five months and twenty-eight days and the sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI.Revision partly allowed. *******