S.C. Mital, J.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice.
4. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 10.6.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner Ramesh Chandra against the judgment passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur dated 14.3.1996 by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. The two other co-accused persons Babu Lal and Vipati Ram were also convicted by the learned trial court, but the learned appellate court accepted their appeal and acquitted them of all the charges. The appellant Ramesh Chandra has filed this revision petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument on the findings of conviction of the petitioner under Sections 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. by the two courts below. I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below and I do not see any cogent and valid ground to disturb the concurrent finding arrived at by them. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgments. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate court have considered in detail the evidence on record and it cannot be held that the two courts below ignored any evidence or misread the same. Hence the conviction of the petitioner for the above said offences deserves to be maintained.
6. It is argued on the point of sentence that the petitioner was of 22 years at the time of filing the challan, other two co- accused persons have been acquitted and the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. is not made out. The petitioner has remained in Jail for 75 days. the incident took place in the year 1987. Therefore, the petitioner has also suffered protracted criminal proceedings for the last 12 years. He has suffered lot of mental agony as well as financial loss. It is, therefore, urged that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this contention in view of the nature of the offence proved against the petitioner.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions. In view of the above stated over all facts and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to reduce the substantive sentence on each count. However, the sentence of fine should be maintained. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 10.6.1999 is hereby maintained. The substantive sentence passed against the petitioner on each count is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine on each count and also in default of payment of fine under the impugned judgment is hereby maintained. The petitioner may deposit the fine before the Jail authority.