JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. Applicants are original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. By judgment and order dated 14th May, 1998 of learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mirzapur (Ahmedabad Rural), in Criminal Case No.93 of 1992, all the accused came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 294-B, 426, 448, 509 and Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Ahmedabad (Rural), Navrangpura in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 1998, which came to be dismissed on 30th July, 2004, confirming the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Originally there were four accused, one of whom died during the pendency of the proceedings. The three of them have filed the present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 1.1. The details of conviction recorded and sentence imposed on each of the applicants are as under: (i) The applicant No.1-original accused No.1 came to be convicted under Sections 294-B, 448 and 509, IPC. In respect of conviction under Section 294- B, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days with fine of Rs. 500/- with default simple imprisonment for five days. In respect of conviction under Section 448, the sentence imposed was one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- with default simple imprisonment for five days. For conviction for offence under Section 509, the sentence imposed on him was one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- with default simple imprisonment for five days. (ii) The applicant No.2-original accused No.2 came to be convicted for the offence under Section 294-B, 426, 448 and 509, IPC. In respect of conviction under Sections 294-B, 448 and 509, the sentence imposed on him was same as was imposed in respect of applicant No.1 mentioned herein above. Applicant No.2 was additionally convicted for offence under Section 426, for which he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days with fine of Rs. 500/- and with default stipulation for five days. (iii) The applicant No.3-original accused No.3 was convicted for offences under Sections 294-B, 448 and 509, IPC. Sentence imposed on him was same for each of the offences as was imposed on applicant No.1 mentioned herein above. 500/- and with default stipulation for five days. (iii) The applicant No.3-original accused No.3 was convicted for offences under Sections 294-B, 448 and 509, IPC. Sentence imposed on him was same for each of the offences as was imposed on applicant No.1 mentioned herein above. (iv) The original accused No.4, now deceased was also convicted for the offences under Section 294-B, 448 and 509, IPC and was similarly sentenced for each of the offences as applicant Nos.1 and 3 came to be sentenced. 2. The prosecution case as was revealed from the complaint (Exh.48) lodged by one Kavita Govindram, who at the relevant time was 21 years of age studying in the second year of Bechlor of Arts course and had been staying at the address 37, Bhagyalaxmi Society, Ranip. It was alleged in the complaint that when she was alone in the house, applicant No.1-accused No.1 Ambalal was speaking filthy and was abusing, stating that why the stones were kept in open gutter. The complainant being alone in the house, she asked him not to speak in filthy language. It was further alleged that thereafter two sons of accused No.1, named Prashant and Bharat, also came and started hurling abuses. Another person Bharatbhai, accused No.4, too arrived and joined them. Accused No.2, it was alleged, caught the complainant from her shoulder and torn off her Kurta. All started pulling her out of house. It was stated further that at that time Shukla Parmanand and Virendra Dubey, the friends of the brother of the complainant reached and separated the complainant from the accused persons. While running away, the accused persons threw stones on the house of the complainant and broke the glasses of the windows. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint on the incident, Criminal Case No.93 of 1992 was registered and accused were subjected to trial, which culminated into the conviction and sentence as above. 3. In course of trial, the prosecution examined witnesses and led documentary evidence. The complainant gave her evidence at Exhibit 46. The other prosecutions witnesses were Parmanand Shukla (Exh. 67) and Virendrakumar Dubey (Exh.69). Panchnama of the place (Exh. 63) was sought to be proved by examining panch witnesses (Exh. 62 and 68). The investigating officer's testimony was recorded at Exhibit 73. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mitesh R. Amin for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari for the respondent-State. 67) and Virendrakumar Dubey (Exh.69). Panchnama of the place (Exh. 63) was sought to be proved by examining panch witnesses (Exh. 62 and 68). The investigating officer's testimony was recorded at Exhibit 73. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mitesh R. Amin for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari for the respondent-State. Assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as well as the confirming judgment and order by the learned Sessions Judge, it was submitted that there were inconsistencies and contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that though the prosecution story was that accused persons spoke filthily and abusively, the complaint (Exh. 48) did not mention what were the abusive utterances, which were first time came to be stated by the complainant in her oral testimony. The leaned advocate also highlighted that there were embellishments in the testimonial versions and therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses was not trustworthy. He relied on various grounds set out in the memo of revision application. It was submitted that none of the offences could have been held proved by the learned Magistrate. 4.1. It was submitted by the learned advocate for applicants, in the alternative, without prejudice to his main contentions, in the alternative that the incident being old and the applicants-accused having been already released on bail, it would be very harsh to send them back to prison even if the conviction and sentence against them is required to be upheld. He submitted that the original complainant has already left the house and accused No.1 is an aged person. It was submitted that accused No.1 has undergone sentence for 3 days and accused Nos.2 and 3 have undergone the sentence for 5 days before they were released on bail. The sentence already undergone may be treated as adequate sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was submitted. 4.2. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court was on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence and the same came to be confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. In his submission, the judgments of the Court below did not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction by this Court when no manifest illegality or perversity was demonstrated. 5. In his submission, the judgments of the Court below did not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction by this Court when no manifest illegality or perversity was demonstrated. 5. The judgment and order of both the Courts below are closely considered. Also considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties in the context of facts and the evidence on record. The accused were charged for offence under Section 294, IPC as well as for the offence under Section 426, which provides for punishment for mischief, the mischief being defined in Section 425, IPC. They are further charged for the offence under Section 448, which provides for punishment for house trace-pass and Section 506, which is in respect of criminal intimidation. It could be noticed that the Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence before it, concluded that the offences were proved. It was found that the complainant's version in the complaint was duly corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. It also held that the evidence of panch witnesses, who are independent witnesses, were also supported the prosecution case inasmuch as panchnama of place at Exh.33 showed that broken glasses of windows are lying in the bed-room. The panchnama was duly proved by evidence at Exhibit 62 and 68. The Court also believed the evidence of eye-witnesses at Exhibit 67 and Exhibit 69. The lower Appellate Court accepted the findings recorded by the Trial Court and held that the incident was proved as well as the presence of the accused persons at the time of incident was also proved. It was held that Parmanand (Exh.67) and Virendra (Exh.69) were eye-witnesses and there was no reason not to believe their testimonial versions, which duly proved that when the complainant lady was alone in the house, the accused persons committed the offences. 5.1. Upon consideration and appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings holding that the offences alleged have been proved. It is trite preposition of law reiterated by the Courts that the High Courts under its revision jurisdiction is not required to enter into re-appreciation of evidence. 5.1. Upon consideration and appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings holding that the offences alleged have been proved. It is trite preposition of law reiterated by the Courts that the High Courts under its revision jurisdiction is not required to enter into re-appreciation of evidence. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandar [ (2012) 9 SCC 460 ], the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 397 was outlined in the following words: "Section 397 of the Code vests the Court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior Court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinize the order, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law". 5.2. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked where, without becoming exhaustive, the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous or the finding recorded is based on no evidence or based on ignoring of material evidence or findings recorded are perverse in nature. Judged from any of the parameters which may warrant the interference in the exercise of revisional powers, no error of any of the category is found. The concurrent findings by both the Court are therefore not liable to be interfered with. 5.3. The alternative submission on behalf of the applicants-accused is that the sentence of two days and five days undergone by the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2-3 respectively may be treated as adequate sentence because if the accused persons are to be sent to jail now, it will be very harsh for them. The plea for treating the sentence undergone as sufficient cannot be acceded to for, the same cannot be accepted as it will be too lenient sentence to be justified and it would mean virtually letting off the accused persons against whom the offences have been held proved by both the Courts below and the conviction and sentence imposed is upheld by this Court. At the same time, certain aspects deserve consideration in so far as awarding sentence to the accused-convicts is concerned. 5.4. Outlining such aspects, the incident took place in the year 1992. Almost 21 years have passed by. It was essentially a quarrel amongst the neighbours residing in a society which got up over a trivial issue of keeping stones in the gutter. It appears from the close consideration of the facts relating to the incident that it arose out of heat of passion. Learned advocate for the applicants in course of his submission stated that original complainant victim has already sold her house in 1993 and she is not staying there. Accused No.1 is 60 years old. Any of the accused have no criminal antecedents. The offence under Section 506 is punishable with imprisonment extend able to two years or with fine or both. The punishment for house-trespass is maximum one year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. The punishment of offence of mischief provides for imprisonment extend able to three months or with fine or with both. Considering the passage of time and the circumstances obtained as well as the punishment provided for the offences alleged, if the imprisonment part of sentence is now executed and the accused persons are again send to custody, it would operate very harsh and agonic without serving any purpose. Instead, increase in the amount of fine and thereby balancing the proportionality of sentence with the offences held proved, may be considered. 5.5. For taking the aforesaid view of enhancing amount of fine imposed instead of requiring the accused persons to undergo the imprisonment any further, the following observations in the decision of this Court in Chandulal alias Maganlal Devchand v. D.B. Chavda, Superintendent of Customs [ 1986 (1) GLR 500 ] may be notice which adopted the similar course in the facts of that case. In that case, the Court was dealing with the conviction and sentence recorded for the offences under the Customs Act, 1962. Taking into account the relevant factors for the purpose of modification of sentence, it was stated, "But in the given case, on peculiar facts as in the instant case, the sentence awarded should also be commensurate-with the gravity of the offence. Taking into account the relevant factors for the purpose of modification of sentence, it was stated, "But in the given case, on peculiar facts as in the instant case, the sentence awarded should also be commensurate-with the gravity of the offence. The court is to take into consideration various factors such as the value of the goods smuggled, the nature and extent of the role played by the accused in the operation such as whether he was brain behind the same or whether he was a carrier or whether he was person who placed his premises at the disposal of the smugglers for storage of the goods. The age of the accused and the fact whether any previous conviction was proved against him are also relevant considerations. The delay in launching proceedings, the length of the period for which the accused was on bail would also be a relevant fact or having bearing on the question of sentence. This list is illustrative and not exhaustive…. ...... Looking to the value of the goods seized it appears that it is not of a big amount. It is only of Rs. 16,940/-. It also indicates that he is not a big smuggler. The fact remains that the said goods were also confiscated. There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner is previously convicted. Further the fact remains that the question of sending the petitioner to jail arise after 12 years after the commission of the offence when the accused is of 71 years of age as he was enlarged on a bail from the beginning. Under the circumstances, I think that this is a fit case in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case wherein it will not be conducive to the ends of justice to send the petitioner to jail after twelve years of the commission of the offence. In my opinion proper fine will meet the ends of justice, but the fine should be increased in lieu of remittance of imprisonment. The trial Court has imposed the sentence of one months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default further R.I. for one month." 6. The decision in Chandulal alias Maganlal (supra), serve as a guiding precedent. The incident was amongst neighbouring persons staying in a society and the issue was trivial, which led to the offences which were product of particular passionate moments. 3000/- in default further R.I. for one month." 6. The decision in Chandulal alias Maganlal (supra), serve as a guiding precedent. The incident was amongst neighbouring persons staying in a society and the issue was trivial, which led to the offences which were product of particular passionate moments. Because of the passage of long time, the Court would be persuaded to desist from sending them back to jail as part of serving sentence. However, the law has to take its course and they be made to pay higher amount of fine and to suffer the sentence accordingly. It may be counter-productive to the ultimate object of sentencing in the administration of justice and may not be conducive to notion of justice if after more than two decades, the applicants-accused are to be sent back in jail in light of the circumstances highlighted in paragraph 5.4 herein above. Having due regard to the factors and aspects stated in paragraph 5.4 above, it would be conducive to and accord with justice if the sentence already undergone by each of the accused is treated to be adequate in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed against each of them is concerned, however, at the same time, the sentence in respect of amount of fine payable shall stand modified by increasing the amount of fine. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be proper to impose fine five times more than imposed by the Trial Court in respect of each of the offence. 6.1. Accordingly, the judgment and order by the Trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court recording conviction and sentence recorded against each of the applicant-accused is hereby upheld and maintained. However, the sentence part is modified by directing that as far as the imprisonment is concerned, the period already undergone in jail by each of the accused persons upto their release on bail shall be treated as adequate and none of the accused would be required to undergo further imprisonment in respect of the conviction recorded against them. However, the sentence in respect of fine payable is modified by increasing the amount of fine payable as under: (i) Applicant No.1-accused No.1 shall be required to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) in respect of his conviction under Sections 294-A, 448 and 509, IPC each in place of Rs. 500/-. However, the sentence in respect of fine payable is modified by increasing the amount of fine payable as under: (i) Applicant No.1-accused No.1 shall be required to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) in respect of his conviction under Sections 294-A, 448 and 509, IPC each in place of Rs. 500/-. Accordingly he shall pay total fine of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only); (ii) Applicant No.2-accused No.2 shall be required to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) in respect of his conviction under Sections 294-A, 426, 448 and 509, IPC each in place of Rs. 500/-. Accordingly he shall pay total fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only); (iii) Applicant No.3-accused No.3 shall be required to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) in respect of his conviction under Sections 294-A, 448 and 509, IPC each in place of Rs. 500/-. Accordingly he shall pay total fine of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only). 6.2. The enhanced amount of fine as above as part of sentence shall be paid by each of the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this judgment and order. It is further clarified that except modification as above in respect of undergoing imprisonment, and the enhancement in the amount of fine payable as above, rest of the sentence, namely the default imprisonment clause shall remain unaltered. Therefore, if any of the applicants fails to pay the increased amount of fine within the time ordered as above, each of them will be liable to undergo the default imprisonment as provided in the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1998 by learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mirzapur (Ahmedabad Rural), in Criminal Case No.93 of 1992 and confirmed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Ahmedabad (Rural), Navrangpura in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 1998 on 30th July, 2004 and they shall be arrested and detained to be sent to custody. 7. The revision application is dismissed except as qualified herein above. The Rule is discharged subject to the above qualification and modification in the sentence part as above. Rule is discharged.