Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This revision petition been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.5.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 31/2010, whereby the appeal of the petitioner been dismissed and the judgment dated 28.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 1387/2007 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' SI together with directing him to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-, has been upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, wherein the trial Court in Cr. Case No. 1387/2007, after recording the evidence of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 28.1.2010. The operative portion of the said judgment dated 28.1.2010 runs as under: ^^fygktk vfHk;qDr jktdqekj iq= Jh gfj lSuh tkfr lSuh fuoklh-,-2] ikuh dh Vadh ds ikl] 'kkL=h uxj] t;iqj dks /kkjk 138 ,u-vkbZ- ,DV ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksi esa N% ekg ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gS lkFk gh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr Qfj;knh dks 1]50]000@& ¼,d yk[k ipkl gtkj½ :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ ¼izfrdj½ vnk djsaA** 3. Against the said judgment, the appeal was preferred. The appellate court vide judgment dated 12.5.2011 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court and passed the following judgment: ^^ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ dh vihy vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS o fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh Hkh vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkyksP; fu.kZ; o n.Mkns'k fnukad 28-1-2010 dh lEiqf"V dh tkrh gSA vihy o fuxjkuh [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA** 4. Against the said judgment, this revision petition was preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has remained in custody for the last 2 months. He has already paid the amount to the complainant and the matter pertains to the year 2007, which is approximately 7 years old. He wants that the petitioner should be released for the period already undergone by him in custody, although he has moved the application for compounding the matter on the basis of compromise. 6. On the other hand, Mr. He wants that the petitioner should be released for the period already undergone by him in custody, although he has moved the application for compounding the matter on the basis of compromise. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has not opposed the same and gave his consent to this court that if the petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him, then he has got no objection, although learned PP has opposed the same. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction of the petitioner, as ordered by the court below, is maintained; (ii) The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above; (iii) The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. The impugned judgment passed by the court below is modified as indicated here-in-above.