JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2020 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2019, "Harish Chandra Bhatt vs. State", whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 2450 of 2016, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 & 427 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each Sections and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in each Sections. The revisionist was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further two months additional imprisonment. All sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum 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. 3. Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. She fairly concedes that revisionist has served 02 months 25 days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a poor person and he is the only bread earner of his family. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offences. He submits that revisionist has already served about 02 months 25 days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist is a poor person and he is the only bread earner of his family, 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 is reduced, adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist as under:- (i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced, adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist as under:- (i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/-, and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional 15 days imprisonment. (ii) For the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2,500/-, and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional 15 days imprisonment. (iii) For the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional one month imprisonment. (iv) For the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2,500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall serve the additional 15 days imprisonment. 6. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, by tomorrow on payment of usual charges.