JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2020 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2017, " Monu Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand", whereby the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the conviction dated 13.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 415 of 2016. By the said order dated 13.10.2017, the revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and the revisionist has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Learned counsel would submit that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case. 3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionist limits his prayer only on the point of quantum of sentence and does not press this revision on merits. He is only submitting on the order of sentence. Since the revisionist's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction in the aforementioned offences is maintained. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has undergone three months and thirteen days in jail and there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence. 5. Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that the revisionist has served three months and thirteen days in the jail. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and the only bread earner of his family. He submits that revisionist has served three months and thirteen days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Since the revisionist has served three months and thirteen days imprisonment and also considering that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 8. 7. Since the revisionist has served three months and thirteen days imprisonment and also considering that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine of the revisionist is enhanced from Rs.1, 000/- to Rs. 2,000/- under Section 279 of IPC and from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. The total enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within fifteen days. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionist fails to deposit the total enhanced amount of fine within fifteen days from today, he shall serve the additional fifteen days imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and additional fifteen days imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 9. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.