JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal revision petition, the accused- petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 10.8.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2007, whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and while reducing the sentence from .6 months' simple imprisonment to 3 months' simple imprisonment maintained the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the R.P.G. Ordinance, 1949 ordered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 296/2005 vide judgment dated 9.2.2007. 2. In this case, without arguing the matter on merit, at the threshold, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that he is not challenging the impugned judgment on merit, therefore, so far as conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 3/4, R.P.G. Ordinance is concerned, he does not press the prayer and his prayer is confined to the extent that either the petitioner may be granted benefit of probation or, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone because he is in judicial custody and, in appeal, in view of the fact that the incident is more than five years old and, thereafter, the petitioner was not found involved in such incident ever again the Appellate Court found reasonable ground to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and, accordingly, reduced the sentence from 6 months' to 3 months' simple imprisonment, therefore, in the interest of justice, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 3. Although learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that save for the isolated incident the petitioner was not found involved thereafter in such offence, however, he opposed the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and stated that the Appellate Court has already considered the mitigating factors in this case and, now, no interference is required. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 5. It is admitted position of the case that recovery in this case is proved before the Court only by the Investigating Officer. The whole judgment is based upon the evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officials. 5. It is admitted position of the case that recovery in this case is proved before the Court only by the Investigating Officer. The whole judgment is based upon the evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officials. Having carefully gone through the judgment of the trial Court dated 9.2.2007, in this case, I am inclined to accept the prayer of learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone while maintaining the fine because the accused-petitioner is in judicial custody and has already served out part of the sentence. More so, it is admitted position of the case that even in this isolated incident in which the petitioner has been found involved, for flimsy grounds, the trial Court refused the benefit of probation. The petitioner has been facing the pain of suffering prosecution for so many years. 6. Therefore, considering the matter in its entirety, this revision petition s partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 3 and 4, R.P.G. Ordinance the sentence awarded by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 10.8.2010 is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused- petitioner. The accused-petitioner shall be set at forthwith.Revision partly allowed. *******