JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 19th December 1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Cr. Appeal No.41/1991, affirming the conviction and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer vide order dated 09th October 1991 in Cr. Case No.106/1984, convicting accused-revision-petitioner for offence under section 353 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 03 months' rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13th February 1983 in the Noon Desert International Hotel, the revision-petitioner made an encroachment and when the officials of the Municipality tried to remove said trespass made by him on the land in question, the revision-petitioner manhandled with said officials and used criminal force against them and thereby obstructed them in discharge of their official duty. 4. On the basis of aforesaid incident, a First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station, Jaisalmer and the Police, after making due investigation in the matter, filed challan against the revision-petitioner in the court. Thereupon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer framed charge against the revision-petitioner for commission of offence under section 353 IPC. The revision-petitioner denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to support its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 CrPC was recorded. The accused-revision-petitioner examined two witnesses in his defence. 6. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments, vide order dated 09th October 1991 held the accused-petitioner guilty of offence under section 353 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction & sentence passed by the trial court, the accused-petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, which also came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19th December 1994. Aggrieved of impugned judgments of conviction & sentence passed by both the courts below, the accused-petitioner has filed present Revision Petition. 8. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction & sentence passed by the trial court, the accused-petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, which also came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19th December 1994. Aggrieved of impugned judgments of conviction & sentence passed by both the courts below, the accused-petitioner has filed present Revision Petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued the Revision Petition on merits but during the course of arguments, being satisfied that on the basis of prosecution evidence, prima facie commission of offence under section 353 IPC by the revision-petitioner is made out; he candidly did not press the appeal on merits and submitted that as maximum sentence prescribed for offence under section 353 IPC is only 02 years' imprisonment, therefore, the revision-petitioner may either be granted benefit of probation or as he remained in jail for 05 days, from 19.12.1994 to 23.12.1994, during the appeal; his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him; looking to age of the accused-petitioner and further that the incident pertains to year 1983 i.e. about 28 years old. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below but not seriously opposed prayer for imprisonment for the period already undergone by the accused-petitioner. 10. I have considered submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments as also record of the courts below. 11. From the scrutiny of the prosecution evidence and the findings given by both the courts below, I am satisfied that the Learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner is right in not pressing present Revision Petition of the accused-petitioner on merits. So far as grant of probation or reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that the incident in the present case took place in the year 1983, thus, it is 28 years' old matter. Presently age of the accused-petitioner is around 55 years and he has been facing trial for quite long time. 12. The offence under section 353 IPC is punishable with maximum sentence of 02 years' imprisonment. Presently age of the accused-petitioner is around 55 years and he has been facing trial for quite long time. 12. The offence under section 353 IPC is punishable with maximum sentence of 02 years' imprisonment. Although, looking to all the facts & circumstances of the case, adequate sentence is required to be imposed on the accused-petitioner; however, looking to facts that the case is 28 years old, age of the accused-petitioner and also looking to the fact that during pendency of the appeal, he served sentence from 19.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 (05 days). As per record, he has remained on bail since 1984 except aforesaid period during appeal in 1994, therefore, it will not be proper now to send him again to jail in this case. 13. However, instead of granting benefit of probation, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded by both the courts below against the accused-revision petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 14. Consequently, this Revision Petition is partly allowed. The conviction against the revision-petitioner under section 353 IPC is maintained but his sentence of imprisonment, awarded by both the courts below, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He is on bail and need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.Revision partly allowed. *******