JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 26th October, 2010, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th March, 2008, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Koderma in connection with G.R. Case No. 620 of 2001 (T.R. No. 17 of 2008) arising out of Koderma, P.S. Case No. 386 of 2001, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence under Section 338 of the I.P.C, and further R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 304 (A) of the I.P.C with a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo S.I. for three months on each count and the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner is aged about more than 50 years and he is not a habitual offender and this is a single case in which he has been convicted and if the petitioner will be sent back to custody then his entire family will face consequence. As such in the interest of justice it would suffice if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 3. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. though supports the impugned orders but did not dispute the fact that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and he is aged about 50 years. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submission of the petitioner and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court, is hereby, confirmed. 5. 5. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2001 and about 19 years have elapsed and it appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 198 days. Further, the record transpires that he never misused the privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather the sentence should be modified in lieu of fine. 6. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/-within a period of three months from today before the learned District Legal Services Authority, Koderma, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court. 8. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of. 9. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. 11. Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Koderma through FAX.