JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 402 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.7.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Cr. Appeal NO.14/97 by which the learned Judge upheld the judgment dated 6.3.1997 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Cr. Case No.895/1996 by which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Under Section 148 IPC : One year SI with fine of Rs. 100/- Under Section 447 IPC : Three months SI with fine of Rs. 100/- Under Section 323 IPC : Six months SI with fine of Rs. 100/- Under Section 325 IPC : Two years SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months SI. 2. At the threshold the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not challenging the finding of conviction of the petitioners given by the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court but submit that incident took place on 5.3.1996 for allegation that upon complaint of Lemba to the effect that on 4.3.1996 when he and his wife and his children were sleeping in the evening at about 7 to 8 p.m. all the accused petitioners alongwith Hiteshwar and Chandra came there and assaulted them by Lathis and Dhariyas and due to the said incident, the complainant party received injuries. Upon the aforesaid information, the FIR was registered at Police Station Bichhiwada, District Dungarpur for offence under Section s 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 325/149 IPC and after investigation challan was filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur from where case was transferred to the court of Civil Judge(JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur and the said court after trail convicted the accused petitioners for aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 6.3.1997. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and the said appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.7.1997 and sent the petitioners to the Jail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that incident took place in the year 1996 and nearabout 18 years have passed, therefore, while taking the lenient view the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the already undergone because they remained in custody for more than 2 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that incident took place in the year 1996 and nearabout 18 years have passed, therefore, while taking the lenient view the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the already undergone because they remained in custody for more than 2 years. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards the judgment reported in 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 250 : Ram Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and submits that petitioners may be granted benefit of probation because they are poor villagers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further cited judgment reported in 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1427: Rakesh @ Roketiya v. State of Rajasthan in which the accused was convicted for offence under Section 457 and 380 IPC but his sentence was reduced to the period already suffered while maintaining the conviction. Therefore, it is submitted that in this case also, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to already undergone or they may be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that although the incident took place in the year 1996 but as per the evidence on record the petitioners inflicted so many injuries including grievous injury upon the non-vital part of the body which is left hand, therefore, no lenient view is to be taken and sentence awarded to them should be upheld. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor it emerges from the facts that incident is related to the year 1996 and although the petitioners were released by the police because the offence was bailable offence but after dismissal of appeal by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, the petitioners were taken in the custody on 28.7.1997 and their sentences were suspended in this revision petition vide order dated 4.9.1997, but in fact, they were released on 10.8.1997. 7. 7. In view of the fact that incident took place in the year 1996 and the petitioners were punished for bailable offence by the learned trial court and for various offences, the different punishments were awarded but maximum punishment awarded to them is 3 years for offence under Section 325 IPC, therefore, while following the aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the instant revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners is hereby partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148, 447, 323 and 325 IPC, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court as mentioned hereinabove is hereby reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall deposit Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the injuries inflicted to the complainant party within a period of 2 months. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned trial court shall disburse the said compensation in favour of the injured persons equally within one month. Since the accused petitioners are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall automatically discharged upon depositing the amount of compensation as ordered above.Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision Partly Allowed. *******