JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. This is an appeal by the original accused-appellant, herein, seeking to assail the order of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Dated : 27.11.1997, rendered in Sessions Case No. 327 of 1993, whereby, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months and for the offence punishable under Section 135(A) of the Bombay Police Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original victim-cum-complainant Ketan kumar Ramanlal Khatri resides in House No. 2244, Holi Chakla, Bhanderi Pole, Dariyapur, and he works in Advertisement Section of the 'Western Times' daily. It is stated in the complaint, that the complainant-Ketankumar was informed by his wife that the accused-appellant, herein, who resides in the same vicinity used to harass her in his absence. Hence, the complainant along with his wife went to the open place near the house of the accused to reprimand him. When they reached there, they found the accused standing there, talking to his two friends. When the complainant asked the accused, as to why he harasses his wife, the accused got angry and started hurling abuses at him. The accused, then, went into his house and came out with an iron pipe and delivered a blow on the head of the complainant, on account of that the complainant fell down and his wife started shouting. In the meantime, the accused went back into his house with the iron pipe. Then, the complainant was taken to the dispensary where he was treated and then, he lodged the complaint in question. 3. On registration of the offence, police carried out the investigation and on finding sufficient evidence, they laid a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant, herein. At the time of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses; ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Ketan Ramanlal Khatri 7 2 Rinaben Ketankumar Khatri 9 3 Bhupendra Madhusudan Bhatt 10 4 Kamlesh Dashrathbhai Patel 11 5 Jitendra Chhotalal Khatri 12 6 Sunil Kantilal Kadiya 13 7 Sunil Amrutlal Kansara 14 8 Dr. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Ketan Ramanlal Khatri 7 2 Rinaben Ketankumar Khatri 9 3 Bhupendra Madhusudan Bhatt 10 4 Kamlesh Dashrathbhai Patel 11 5 Jitendra Chhotalal Khatri 12 6 Sunil Kantilal Kadiya 13 7 Sunil Amrutlal Kansara 14 8 Dr. Ashok Sureshchandra Jain 15 9 Bhupendra Ramkumar Khatri 19 10 Dr. Mitesh Kalabhai Garasiya 25 11 Lalubha Gopalsinh Zala, PSI 27 12 Laxmansinh Raisinh Parmar, PSI 32 4. Apart from that the prosecution also produced the documentary evidence, which reads as under; DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Documents Exhibit No. 1 Complaint of the complainant 8 2 Certificate issued by Dr. Ashok Jain 16 3 Case papers given Dr. Jain to the complainant 18 4 Injury certificate issued by the V.S. Hospital to the complainant 26 5 Panchnama of place of offence 28 6 A copy of the notification under Section 37/1 of the Bombay Police Act 29 7 Panchnama in regard to shirt and napkin of the complainant 33 8 Panchnama of the muddamal seized from the accused 34 9 Report under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. 35 5. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and perusing the material on record, the trial Court passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Mr. Buddhbhatti, learned Advocate for the original accused-appellant, herein, submitted that the trial Court, while recording the conviction of the accused, did not take into consideration the fact that the accused also sustained injuries during the alleged incident for which he had also lodged an N.C. Complaint, which he could not pursue further, as he came to be arrested soon after the incident. He, further, submitted that the trial Court also overlooked the fact that at the time of incident the accused was a young boy. He, therefore, submitted that looking to the young age of the accused and in view of the fact that almost 20 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra", 2013 (6) SCALE 778 , which is followed by this Court in a number of decisions, present appeal be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Ms. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Bhatt, strongly opposed the present appeal and supported the order of the trial Court, stating that the accused was harassing the wife of the complainant and when the complainant tried to reprimand him, the accused attacked the complainant and caused grave injury to him, which gets support from the material on record, and hence, present appeal be dismissed. 8. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent-State and perused the material on record with their assistance. 9. In order to charge under Section 324 of the IPC, the prosecution examined the complainant as P.W.-1. P.W.-1, in his examination-in-chief (Exhibit-7), stated that on the date of the alleged offence, when he went to reprimand the accused about his conduct along with his wife, the accused got angry and hurled abuses at him and then went into his house and returned with an iron pipe and delivered a blow on his head. P.W.- 1, then, recognised the accused-appellant, herein, as the perpetrator of the crime. The complainant also identified the blood stained shirt put on by him, at the time of offence, as Mark-A and the blood stained napkin as Mark-B. The complainant also identified the iron pipe with which he was attacked by the accused as muddamal article No. 3. P.W.-1, in his cross-examination, has reiterated that when he tried to reprimand the accused, the accused got angry and started hurling abuses at him. P.W.-1 denied the suggestion that at the time of offence, he had delivered fist blows on the face of the accused and the complainant stated that instead the accused delivered iron pipe blow on his head. P.W.-1 also denied the suggestion to have stated to Dr. Jain that he had sustained injury by a blunt substance while he fell down on road. Thus, from the cross-examination of this witness, nothing could be brought out which could help the case of the accused. 10. The next witness examined by the prosecution in support of its case is an eyewitness of the incident and the wife of the complainant, who was examined as P.W.-2. P.W.-2, in her evidence (Exhibit-9), recited the facts already given by her husband and attributed the injury sustained by her husband to the accused-appellant, herein. 10. The next witness examined by the prosecution in support of its case is an eyewitness of the incident and the wife of the complainant, who was examined as P.W.-2. P.W.-2, in her evidence (Exhibit-9), recited the facts already given by her husband and attributed the injury sustained by her husband to the accused-appellant, herein. In her cross-examination, P.W.-2 stated that on the date of the alleged incident also the accused had tried to harass her, and therefore, she along with her husband went to reprimand the accused and denied the suggestion that her husband, firstly, went to reprimand the accused and she followed him afterwards. Thus, from this piece of evidence, the presence of P.W.-2 at the place of incident, at the time of its commission, is borne out. P.W.-2, falling in line with P.W.-1, also denied the suggestion that there used to be frequent quarrels between them and the accused on account of the noise and smoke emitted during repairing of vehicles, which was the mode of earning livelihood by the accused. Thus, the cross-examination of P.W.-2 also does not take the case of the accused-appellant any further. 11. P.W.-3, who was an independent eyewitness, also supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect of infliction of the injury by the accused on the complainant and the cross-examination of this witness also proves to be of no help from the view point of the accused. 12. Dr. Ashok Jain, who had given the primary treatment to the complainant and was examined as P.W.-8, also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.-8, in his examination-in-chief (Exhibit-15), after perusing the muddamal iron pipe, opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant could be caused by the same. This witness also stated that at the time of treatment, the complainant had informed him as to how he received the injury. In his cross-examination, P.W.-8 stated that it is not true that during the course of treatment he did not come to know as to how the complainant sustained injury. The evidence of this witness also does not help the accused in any manner. 13. The evidence of P.W.-10 are not of much importance. 14. The evidence of P.W.-11, who carried out the investigation into the alleged offence, also supports the case of the prosecution. The evidence of this witness also does not help the accused in any manner. 13. The evidence of P.W.-10 are not of much importance. 14. The evidence of P.W.-11, who carried out the investigation into the alleged offence, also supports the case of the prosecution. P.W.-11, in his examination-in-chief (Exhibit-27), stated that after taking over the investigation into the alleged offence, he visited the place of offence and carried out the panchnama of the place of offence and seized the muddamal blood stained shirt, napkin and the muddamal weapon and also recorded the statement of the complainant and the other members of the locality. In his cross-examination, P.W.-11 stated that, though, the incident had taken place into a densely populated area, since, most of the members of locality did not support the case of the prosecution, he did not cite them as witnesses in the charge-sheet. P.W.-11, further, denied the suggestion that he did not go to the place of offence and obtained the signatures of the panch witnesses on readymade panchnama. 15. The evidence of P.W.-12, who was discharging duties as First Grade Jamadar, are almost similar to that of P.W.-11, and hence, I do not propose to go into the same in detail. 16. So far as the evidence of P.W. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are concerned, they did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile, and hence, there is no need to evaluate the same. 17. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.- 2 and, more particularly P.W.-3, who is an independent eye-witnesses of the incident, the presence of the accused at the place of incident, at the time of its commission, stands established beyond doubt. Even otherwise, the defence taken by the accused that during the alleged incident the complainant had inflicted injuries on him and for that he had also lodged an N.C. Complaint with the police, also goes to show that the accused was very much present at the place of incident, at the time of its commission, and that it was the accused, who inflicted the injury on the complainant, and no one else. Even the medical certificate issued by the V.S. Hospital (Exhibit-26), Dated : 08.07.1993, also reflects the words "assault by the opposite party", which again supports the prosecution case. Even the medical certificate issued by the V.S. Hospital (Exhibit-26), Dated : 08.07.1993, also reflects the words "assault by the opposite party", which again supports the prosecution case. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused-appellant under Section-324 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Now, so far as the sentence under Section 324 of the IPC is concerned, the trial Court has inflicted punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months on the accused-appellant under the said section. Here, the note of the fact may be taken that at the time, when the alleged incident took place, the accused was a young boy and since then, much water has flown. The appeal of the accused against the order of conviction has been pending since 1997, i.e. nearly 17 years have passed, after the alleged incident took place. Further, even as per the evidence of the complainant-P.W.- 1, the accused had inflicted only one blow and that he did not make any attempt to inflict further blows on him. The accused-appellant does not appear to have any criminal antecedents. In that view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra" (Supra). In that case, while the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 were passing through the filed of the deceased, wherein, the crop of sugar-cane was taken by the deceased, the dog of the deceased started barking at them and being aggrieved thereby original accused No. 1 hit the dog with an iron pipe and when the deceased objected to the same, there was exchange of hot words, which resulted into a scuffle, during which original accused Nos. 2 and 3 delivered kick and fist blows to the deceased, whereas, accused No. 1 inflicted blow of iron pipe on the head of the deceased, on account of which the deceased expired, subsequently. The trial Court as well as the High Court held the accused No. 1 guilty for the offence of murder and convicted him under Section 302. 2 and 3 delivered kick and fist blows to the deceased, whereas, accused No. 1 inflicted blow of iron pipe on the head of the deceased, on account of which the deceased expired, subsequently. The trial Court as well as the High Court held the accused No. 1 guilty for the offence of murder and convicted him under Section 302. Being aggrieved there by the accused No. 1 approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that there was a sudden quarrel, modified the conviction of the accused No. 1 from Section 302 to Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of disposing of the said matter, the Apex Court, making a reference to the provisions of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., observed as under; "62. To sum up: While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family." 19. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family." 19. In the case on hand also, since, there was no premeditation on the part of accused-appellant to commit the alleged offence and it is only when the appellant along with his wife went to him and tried to reprimand him about his conduct, whereupon the alleged incident took place and that the injury received by the complainant was not very grave and he was treated as outdoor patient, the accused deserve to be given the benefit of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. This Court is, therefore, of opinion that, if, the punishment of imprisonment inflicted by the trial Court on the accused-appellant is modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him and the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- same would met the ends of justice. 20. So far as the conviction of the accused-appellant by the trial Court under Section 135(A) of the Bombay Police Act is concerned, the prosecution produced a copy of the notification under Section 37/1 of the Bombay Police Act vide Exhibit-29, to show that such a notification was in existence. However, the prosecution seems to have made no attempt to prove the said document by examining any official from the concerned office so as to establish that the said notification was given due publicity. In the absence of any such evidence, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant was aware about such a notification, prohibiting carrying of arms. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in recording the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 135(A) of the Bombay Police Act and the accused requires to be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 21. In the result, this appeal is Partly Allowed. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in recording the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 135(A) of the Bombay Police Act and the accused requires to be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 21. In the result, this appeal is Partly Allowed. Though, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad" (Supra), the sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of two years to the period of imprisonment Already Undergone by him, whereas, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), which will be paid/deposited by him before the concerned trial Court within a period of Four Weeks from today. If he Does Not deposit Rs.10,000/-, as above, the original sentence imposed by the trial court under the aforesaid section shall stand automatically Revived and the jail authority will take appropriate steps to secure his custody so as to ensure that he serves the remaining sentence. Further, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is set aside. The order of the trial Court, Dated : 17.11.1997, stands Modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount of Rs.10,000/- being deposited, Rs.8,000/- will be given to the original complainant and Rs.2,000/- will be given to the State. The bail bonds of the accused stands discharged. Appeal partly allowed.