JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this revision petition on merits and prays that the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the accused-petitioners by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them. 3. The matter arises out of an incident dated 7.10.1985, of which a written report was lodged by one Samartha at Police Station - Bagra, and the police, after investigation of the case, submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners as well as three co-accused persons, namely, Babu, Kapia and Fulia. The trial Court, after completion of trial, vide its judgment and order dated 25.2.1988 convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under: Name of Accused Sections Sentence of imprisonment Puria 148, I.P.C. To undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; 326, I.P.C. To undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-; 324, I.P.C. To undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; 323, I.P.C. To undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; Dhukia 147, I.P.C. To undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; 326/149,I.P.C. To undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-; 324/149,I.P.C. To undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; 323, I.P.C To undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; In default of payment of total fine of Rs. 500/-, each of the accused was ordered to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by both the accused-petitioners and the appellate Court, vide its judgment and order dated 1.2.1994, confirmed the conviction of accused Puria under Sections 148, 323 and 326, I.P.C. and accused Dhukia under Sections 147, 326/34 and 323, I.P.C. Being aggrieved with the same, the present revision petition has been preferred. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not argue the revision petition on merits and submitted that both the accused-persons have already remained in jail for more than eight months, therefore, their sentence of imprisonment be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not argue the revision petition on merits and submitted that both the accused-persons have already remained in jail for more than eight months, therefore, their sentence of imprisonment be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor admitted that both the accused-petitioners have remained in jail for a period of more than eight months and did not oppose the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners seriously about reduction of their sentence of imprisonment. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of findings of both the Courts below and, after considering the same, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioners rightly did not .challenge the order of conviction passed by both the Courts below against the petitioners as there is concurrent finding about commission of offence against both of them by both the Courts below; no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in the said finding, hence no interference by this Court is called for so far as order of conviction is concerned. 8. So far as reduction of their sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 326 and 326/149 I.P.C', and, as admitted by both the learned counsel, the petitioners have remained in jail for more than eight months; the incident took place in the year 1985, therefore, it is 24 years old matter; the petitioners faced trial and remained under mental agony for the above period. In these circumstances, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet in case their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of conviction passed against the petitioners by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed; their order of sentence is modified and their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are discharged and they need not to surrender.Revision petition partly allowed. *******