JUDGMENT :- This Criminal Revision Application is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1994. The applicant had filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction under sections 353, 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence, but maintained the conviction of the applicant under all the three offences. 2. The facts leading to the case can be narrated in short as under :- The complainant a Police Sub-Inspector stated in his complaint that while he was interrogating and recording statements of the witnesses in Crime No.229 of 1992 in which the applicant was an accused, the applicant at about 12 : 00 mid-day came in his Office, and asked him as to why he was interrogating the witnesses, why he had taken interest in the case and that he should not raise his voice while interrogating the witnesses etc. He then said that he would take the witnesses to the Superintendent of Police and then he would expose the complainant. Saying so, the applicant rushed at the complainant. On the basis of this complaint, as said above the offence came to be registered punishable under sections 353,186 and 189, IPC. Both the Courts below held that the prosecution has proved it's case beyond doubt. The trial Court held that though, the offences punishable under sections 186, 189, IPC are proved against the applicant, he would avoid awarding separate sentences under these provisions to the applicant. But he would award punishment to the applicant only under the provisions of section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The lower Court awarded three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, further simple imprisonment for one month. As said above, the appellate Court simply reduced the duration of the sentence from three months to one month. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant argued that the lower appellate Court grossly erred in appreciation of the evidence. He pointed out that the Courts below could not have believed the statement of the prosecution witness including the complainant in respect of the alleged action of the applicant when they stated that the applicant after having quarrel with the complainant rushed at him. He pointed out that the Courts below could not have believed the statement of the prosecution witness including the complainant in respect of the alleged action of the applicant when they stated that the applicant after having quarrel with the complainant rushed at him. He pointed out that an independent witness did not support the assertion of the complainant and other witness when the applicant eventually at the end of the quarrel rushed at the complainant. 4. I am afraid this aspect has already been taken into account while the Appeal was argued before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, despite of this lacuna of the prosecution case, inclined to give credence to the complainant's deposition and held that the applicant rushed at the complainant and thereby, committed the offence under section 353, IPC. There is apparently nothing in the judgment passed by the lower Courts, which could be said to be perverse or illegal. As said above, the only arguable question of fact was as to whether the Police Officers, the prosecution witnesses could have been believed, as against the independent witnesses. I am not inclined to discuss the appreciation of evidence by the lower Courts. I find the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is not perverse. The only point that requires further discussion and probably correction is the quantum of sentence awarded to the applicant. 5. In my view, the awarding of sentence of one month simple imprisonment for the act complained about, is rather too heavy. The applicant had no occasion to touch the person of the complainant. That is not the prosecution case at all. He simply rushed at the complainant. Having regard to the fact that the complainant is a Police Officer, the gesture of rushing towards him could not have been menacing enough. I think there is a little exaggeration in awarding of the sentence. There is one more reason why leniency should be shown to the applicant. The applicant is facing this prosecution since 1992. In the process, he must have attended numerous Court dates. In my view, in these circumstances, sentence till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred) would mitigate the offence and to that extent the Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The applicant is facing this prosecution since 1992. In the process, he must have attended numerous Court dates. In my view, in these circumstances, sentence till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred) would mitigate the offence and to that extent the Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under sections 353, 186 and 189, IPC is maintained but he is sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (the fine is already deposited). 6. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Application partly allowed.