JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 24.8.1999 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, convicted the appellant under Sections 307/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Sarban Singh, complainant. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periosd of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The present appeal was admitted and the appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court on 10.2.2000. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 3. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 2.6.1994. The appellant has suffered protracted trial for 16 years. He remained in custody for a period of about 9-1/2 months. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as “R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another” observed as under: “26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment” 6. In another case titled as “Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana”, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:­ “After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the sentence/imprisonment already undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice. 8. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellant is, however, enhanced to Rs.50,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the amount of fine of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.20,000/­ shall be deposited by the appellant with the respondent-State and rest of the amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to the victim as compensation. 9. In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 10. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ————