JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 60/1999 whereby he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.9.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Criminal Case No. 266/1996 whereby he has been convicted the petitioner under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.' 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.12.1992 at 2.15 P.M. Parmeshwar Dayal, Head Constable 1120, Police Station Rajgarh recorded the Parcha Bayan of the injured Girraj son of Shri Kanhaiyalal admitted in Refral Hospital, Rajgarh. It was stated that on 1.12.1992 at about 9.30 A.M. he was warming water in the kitchen at his house, when he came out of his kitchen, he found Khilari and Samarath Lal sons of Dhanna of his village. It was stated that Khilari made an attempt to inflict Ballam blow on him which was warded of by his right hand, then Samarath Lal inflicted Farsi blow on his left hand as a result of which he sustained serious injury. It was further stated that Dhanna had broken the leg of his (Bhuwa) at about three years ago. In that case, his father Kanhaiaya Lal had given evidence and since then they are enmically disposed. This incident was witnessed by Nanda son of Narayan and Mohan Lal son of Hira Lal. He was got admitted in hospital by his father. 3. On the aforesaid Parcha Bayan the police registered a case under Sections 451, 323 and 324 I.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 151/1992 at Police Station Tehla and started investigation. 4. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the matter of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1986 Cri.L.J. 2061 . The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under : "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on 22.4.1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mustsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed." 5. It is contended that the F.I.R. was lodged 013 1.12.1992 and the petitioner is facing trial from the last 18 years and the age of the petitioner is near about 40 years. It is also contended that it is a first offence of the petitioner in his life and he is not a habitual offender and further prays that he be released for the period already undergone by him in the judicial custody because he remains in judicial custody near about 23 days. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of the above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think it proper to send back the petitioner in judicial custody after 18 years. 8. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it is a fit case where the appellant should be sent back to jail.' 9. In the result, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. In the result, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has already undergone confinement for the period which has indicated above, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing them for the period already undergone by them in confinement. 10. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him in the custody. The accused-petitioner is directed to deposit fine of Rs. 5,000/- in the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same should be given to the complainant of the case. 11. The judgment and order dated 29.6.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Alwar is modified to the extent as indicated above. 12. This criminal revision petition is partly allowedRevision petition partly allowed. *******