' This case has a chequred history. The petitioners are involved in case F.I.R. No,117 of 1988, dated 18- 9-1988 registered under section 307/325/452/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Bhera. For the first time, they were convicted on 14-7-1993, the case was remanded by the High Court with the direction to record the statement of Muhammad Nawaz under section 342, Cr.P.C., in accordance with law and to proceed afresh with the trial. In compliance with the direction of High Court, this case was re- tried and on 3-3-1993 petitioners were convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C., and were sentenced to three years R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,5,000. In appeal there against, the matter was once again remanded for reexamination of the witnesses after giving them proper oath. The case was once again re-tried and on 20-7-1998 the accused/petitioners were convicted under section 325/34 and sentenced to three years R.I., and to pay fine of Rs,5,000. In appeal against this order, case was again remanded on the ground that after recording statement of the witnesses, statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., were not recorded, thus, it was directed to record the statement of petitioners under section 342, Cr.P.C., and decide the case afresh. Thus, finally learned Magistrate section 30, Bhalwal vide order, dated 23-10-1999 convicted the petitioners under section 307, P.P.C., and sentenced them to two years R.I, and fine of Rs, 2,000 each as well as convicted them under section 325, P.P.C., and sentenced to one year R.I. With fine of Rs, 1,000 each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was further directed that the fine, if realised, be paid to the injured P.Ws. Or in default of payment, to further undergo three months R.I. Each. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the abovesaid order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal vide order, dated 13-11-1999 with the modification to extend the benefit of section 382-B, .Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioners.
' Petitioners have challenged the orders of learned lower Courts by way of filing instant criminal revision.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or A perversity in the impugned orders calling interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Admittedly, the petitioners are facing the agony of trial since 1988, hence, the quantum of sentence can be considered in the circumstances of this case.
' Petitioners have undergone the rigors of trial thrice. They were sentenced to three years R.I., in the first round whereas in the re-trial the sentence of the petitioners was same but in the third round while convicting the petitioners under section 307, P.P.C., the sentence was reduced to the period of two years R.I., with fine of Rs,2,000 each; they were also convicted under section 325, P.P.C., and sentenced imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs,1,000 each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. Each.
4. Keeping in view the period since this case is pending and the fact that the petitioners have already undergone the rigors of trial thrice and faced the Appellate Court thrice and they also have, by this time, undergone a substantive period of their sentence, I am persuaded to take lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners, and maintaining their sentence of fine, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. They shall be liable to pay the fine as fixed by the learned Trial Court on the same terms.
5. With this observation, instant criminal revision stands disposed of.