ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.PC. has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.9.2019 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Criminal Appeal No.169/2019 (Bablu @ Lal Panda v. State of MP), whereby judgment dated 25.6.2019, passed by the learned JMFC in Case No.1373/2014 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 327 and 324 of IPC and awarding him sentence of 1-1 year RI in each offence and fine of Rs.500/- and Rs. 300/- respectively with default stipulation has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that on 9.6.2014, complainant Golu @ Avinash lodged a report against the petitioner Bablu @ Lal Panda to the effect that on 9.6.2014 at about 8:15 pm, he was going to his home, then, petitioner met him and abused him filthily and asked money for liquor. On refusal by complainant, he caught hold his neck and attacked him with lathi over his head. Upon hearing the noise, complainant’s brother Pawan came there, then, petitioner Bablu @ Lal Panda attacked his brother on the neck with knife. Bablu @ Lal Panda also threatened him to kill. Gore Lal and Ajay intervened. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under sections 327, 324, 323, 294 and 506 of IPC. 3. Learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under section 294, 327, 324 and 506-II of IPC. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed in Case No. 1373/2014 (State of MP v. Bablu @ Lal Panda), after evaluation of evidence, found petitioner to have committed offence under section 327 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1-1 year RI in each offence and fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs 300/- respectively with default stipulations. Against the above judgment, petitioner filed an appeal and learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 16.9.2019 passed in Cr.A. No. 169/2019, dismissed the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment with respect to conviction and sentence as above. Against this, petitioner has preferred present revision. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC:- 5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC:- 5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. In this connection, I would like to refer decisions of Hon’ble apex Court in State v. R. Soundirarasu, AIR 2022 SC 4218 , State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench). 6. In Duli Chand (supra), Hon’ble apex Court has held as under:- “5………The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate Courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. …..” 7. In R. Soundirarasu (supra),Hon’ble apex court has held as under:- “75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631 : ( AIR 2002 SC 107 : 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held as under:- "3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate Courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial Court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure.” 8. In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon’ble apex Court has held as under:- “21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004 [Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the Courts below. 22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court." It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in section 395 to section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power.” 9. Now, I will examine the submissions of learned counsel of the parties, grounds taken by the petitioner in the revision petition & evidence/facts of the case in the light of above position. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record properly and there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses and they do not inspire confidence and testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not supported by an independent witnesses. 11. Perusal of depositions of prosecution witnesses Golu Dohare (PW-1), Ajay Kumar (PW-2), Smt. Sheela Bai (PW-6), Pawan (PW-7) reveal that there are no material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in their Court’s testimony inter se & nor there are any contradictions, omissions and discrepancies between their Court’s statements and FIR/police statements. Above prosecution witnesses appears wholly reliable. 12. Further, testimony of Golu Dohre (PW-1) and FIR Ex. P/1 shows that FIR has been lodged immediately after the incident against the petitioner and the said FIR also corroborates Golu Dohre’s testimony in material particulars. Further, prosecution witness Dr. A.K. Khare (PW-4) has examined complainant/injured persons on the day of incident itself and has found injuries as deposed by the injured persons. The medical reports prepared by the witness are Ex. P/5 and P/6. Thus,medical evidence also corroborate the testimonies of complainant/injured Golu @ Avinash & Pawan. 13. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and neither it is shown from the testimony of injured persons that they have any reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. 14. Therefore, in view of above, in this Court’s opinion, learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below with respect to petitioner’s conviction under sections 327 and 324 of IPC. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the same. 15. 14. Therefore, in view of above, in this Court’s opinion, learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below with respect to petitioner’s conviction under sections 327 and 324 of IPC. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the same. 15. So far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner and complainant/injured persons have compromised the matter but as the offence proved against the petitioner are non-compoundable, therefore, the fact of compromise may be taken into consideration with respect to sentence. Petitioner has been convicted for the offence u/s 324 & 327 of IPC, which are noncompoundable as per section 320 of CrPC. Hence, parties can not be allowed to compound the said offence & petitioner can not be acquitted on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. 16. But it is well established by a catena of decisions of Hon’ble apex Court that where offences are non-compoundable, then, in such cases, the fact of compromise may be taken into consideration while imposing sentence. From record, it is evident that petitioner and complainant/injured persons have compromised the matter and this fact has been verified. Offence u/s 324 & 327 of IPC are noncompoundable as per section 320 of CrPC. 17. Therefore, in this Court’s opinion the fact of compromise may be taken into consideration with respect to sentence. learned Courts below have awarded sentence R.I of 1 year for each offence under section 327 and 324 of IPC. From record of the case, it is apparent that petitioner has remained in jail during trial from 30.6.2014 to 8.7.2014, 13.5.2015 to 21.5.2015, 13.3.2018 to 22.3.2018, 26.5.2019 to 4.6.2019 and after dismissal of appeal, petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2022. 18. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be just and proper, if the jail sentence so awarded is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner so far. 19. Resultantly, this revision is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The judgment of conviction is affirmed but the jail sentence is modified and petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 20. 19. Resultantly, this revision is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The judgment of conviction is affirmed but the jail sentence is modified and petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 20. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to learned trial Court/appellate court Sehore, District Sehore & concerned jail for information and necessary action. 21. Present revision petition is disposed off accordingly.