1. Hafiz Haji Imdad Ullah with his brother Hafiz Ziaullah were tried by Assistant Commissioner, Noorpur Thai, for an offence under section 325/34, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 26-11-1989 convicted and sentenced each of the petitioners under section 324/34, P.P.C. To two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default four months' R.I. Each. Both the convicts appealed. The appellate Court vide its judgment, dated 16-4-1990 while dismissing the appeal, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years' R.I. To six months' R.I. Each. The fine was increased from Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000 in default of payment of fine, further R.I. For one month each.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already undergone the entire period of sentence as they were not bailed out. Submits that in these circumstances the sentence of fine may be set aside because the occurrence had taken place in the year 1987 and since then they are facing the hardships of criminal prosecution. Contends that even otherwise the petitioners are alleged to have caused only simple injuries.
3. Arguments heard. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners. There was a delay of about seventy days in the registration of case but the same has been explained. The petitioners have undergone the entire period of their sentence of six months which, I feel, is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, while dismissing the revision, I accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and while -maintaining the sentence of imprisonment the sentence of fine is set aside. Revision is disposed of.