JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. These two appeals emanates from the selfsame judgment and order of sentence dated 31.12.2003 passed by the learned 4th Fast Track Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1998. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2004 is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant-original accused to assail the impugned judgment, whereunder he is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 506(2), 504 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month. No separate sentence for offence punishable under Sections 506(2) and 504 of the India Penal Code. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2004 is preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the appellant. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that: On 12.12.1997 at about 07.15 p.m. Jentilal Maiyabhai (PW-1-Original complainant) who was the driver of the ST Bus was taking tea at a tea stall near Majevadi Bus Stand, at that time, the present appellant came and asked PW-1 as to why he did not stop the ST Bus, at Majevadi gate and started abusing PW-1. The appellant also gave stick blow on left wrist of the PW-1. A complaint in respect of this incident was lodged by PW-1 with Junagadh City 'B' Division Police Station on basis of which FIR vide II-C.R. No. 3106 of 1997 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 5. Upon conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against them in Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Junagadh, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions. 6. The charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried and so to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused person. 7. The prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidences as under: -: ORAL EVIDENCE:- Sr.No. Witness no. 6. The charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried and so to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused person. 7. The prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidences as under: -: ORAL EVIDENCE:- Sr.No. Witness no. Name & other details Exhibit No. Complainant and Witnesses : 1 Wit.1 Jentilal Mayabhai Complainant S. T. Driver 10 2 Wit.2 Rambhai Amrabhai Witness S. T. Conductor 12 3 Wit.7 Bhanubhjai Mohanbhai Witness( person of Tea Hotel ) 20 Government Witnesses : 4 Wit.6 Dr. Laxmanbhai Kababhai Parmar 17 5 Wit.12 Mahendrabhai Bhikhabhai Dave (Officer of S.T.) 32 Panch Witnesses : 6 Wit.3 Kanjibhai Nathabhai Panch Witness 13 7 Wit.4 Jamanbhai Tapubhai Panch Witness 14 Witness nos. 3 & 4 are the Panch witnesses of the scene of offence, who turned hostile. 8 Wit.5 Ramjibhai Khimabhai Panch Witness (Panch of the seizure of stick) 15 9 Wit.8 Mamadbhai Kasambhai Panch Witness (Panch of the seizure of stick) 21 Police Witnesses : 10 Wit.9 Abdul Khalid Suleman (took the complaint.) 22 11 Wit.10 Ratilal Maganlal (P.S.O.) 23 12 Wit.11 Ramniklal Dharmsibhai (The Investigating Officer of this case) 26 -: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:- Sr.No. Particulars of the Documents Exhibit No. 1 Complaint 11 2 Certificate of Injury sustained to the complainant. 18 3 Abstract of the Complaint of C.R. no.II 106 / 1997 24 4 Abstract of Station Diary 25 5 Letter written by the Center Administrator regarding beating by the P.S.I. Junagadh 27 6 Regarding addition of section 333 of I.P.C. 28 7 M.L.C. case and other Medical case papers 19 8 Panchnama of the scene of offence. 29 9 Panchnama about the detention of the accused and seizure of stick. 30 10 Duty Certificate issued by the Center Administrator ' A' S. T. Dhoraji. 34 11 Certificate regarding Control Art issued by the Center Administrator Junagadh. 35 12 Purshish regarding closing of evidence. (Closing Pursish) 36 8. Upon conclusion of the trial, statement under Section 313 of the Code of the accused-appellant came to be recorded. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, convicted the appellant accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order. 9. I have heard Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, convicted the appellant accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order. 9. I have heard Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State in both the appeals. Perused the record of Sessions Case No. 62 of 1998. 10. Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate under instructions of the appellant who is present in the Court submitted that the appellant does not proposed to challenge his conviction on merits. He submits that the incident had happened around 22 years ago in the year 1997 and now the appellant is aged about 67 years and is suffering from the age related ailment. He submitted that the appellant has no past criminal antecedent and no other incident has happened in the interregnum period. He, therefore, urged that the sentence imposed on the appellant may be modified to already undergone, while enhancing the fine. 11. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the appellant has caused obstruction in discharging the official duty of PW-1 as driver of the ST Bus. He submitted that the appellant has abused and caused fracture injuries to PW-1. Hence, he submitted that no leniency to be shown to the appellant accused and sentence imposed on him may be enhanced by allowing appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2004. 12. It appears from the evidence of PW-1-complainant and Rambhai Amrabhai PW-2 conductor of the ST Bus that the appellant had abused PW-1 and inflicted serious injuries on left hand wrist for not stopping the bus at Majevadi. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 333, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the incident had happened around 22 years ago in the year 1997. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. In the interregnum period, he has not acted in any manner prejudicial to law and order nor has he came in conflict with PW-1. It appears that the appellant is now 67 years and suffering from age related ailments. Hence, I am of the view that the submission of Mr. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. In the interregnum period, he has not acted in any manner prejudicial to law and order nor has he came in conflict with PW-1. It appears that the appellant is now 67 years and suffering from age related ailments. Hence, I am of the view that the submission of Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate to modify the substantive sentence to already undergone and to raise the fine amount needs to be accepted. 13. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2004 is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.12.2003 passed by the learned 4th Fast Track Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1998 is hereby modified while enhancing punishment of fine of Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 2000/- imposed by the trial Court and the substantive sentence is modified to already undergone. 14. The appellant accused is directed to pay the balance amount of fine i.e. Rs. 2000/- in the Trial Court on or before 30.11.2019. 15. Since the accused person is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and surety, if any stands discharged. 16. Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2004 is hereby dismissed, in view of disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2004. 17. Record and proceedings to be transmitted to the Trial Court.