N.S. Gupta, J. - (1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 30th April, 1983 passed by Sri Pramod Kumar Sareen, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1983 confirming the judgement and order of Sri Gaur Chand, II Additional Judicial Magistrate, Etawah dated 27th January, 1983 in Criminal Case No. 777 of 1982 who convicted the applicant revisionist under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three months R.I. The prosecutions claimed that on 27.1.1980 at about 10.00 A.M. in village Rathgaon police station Bidhuna District Etawah accused revisionist Vijay Narayan along with others viz. Batehwar Dayal, Ram Prakash, Ram Adhar and Ram Autar were digging a pit for their parnal over the land of the complainant Shajad Ali, P.W.1, when his mother Smt. Maryam, P.W.2 and sister objected to it, the applicant revisionist Vijay Narayan and his associates assaulted Smt. Maryam and Sahjad Ali by means of Lathi and caused following injury to them. Injury of Smt. Maryam:- JUDGEMENT_134_LAWS(ALL)11_1995.html A F.IR about this incident was lodged by Sahjad Ali. The police after needful investigation into the matter submitted a charge sheet against the accused revisionist Vijay Narayan and Ram Autar. The trial court convicted and sentenced Vijai Narain and Ram Autar under Section 323 Indian Penal Code to undergo 3 months R.I., on appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and sentence of accused revisionist Vijay Narayan. He however, set aside the conviction and sentence of co-accused Ram Autar as per his judgement and order dated 30.4.83. Aggrieved of the same Vijay Narayan has come up in revision before this court. I have heard Sri S.D.N. Singh learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri V.B. Singh learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in fact no F.I.R. was lodged by Sahjad Ali, P.W.1. The F.I.R. on record was not in his handwriting. It bears no signature. Since there existed no F.I.R. the prosecution and conviction of the accused revisionist was bad in law. I am unable to agree. It was specifically averred by Sahjad Ali in his statement before the trial court that the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 was in his handwriting and bears his signature. As against this statement the statement of Head Constable Atma Singh, P.W.5 that the F.I.R. Exh. Ka.1 was not in the handwriting of Sahjad Ali is of no significance and was rightly discarded by the court below. It was further argued that when co-accused Ram Autar was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge there was no justification for sustaining the conviction against accused revisionist Vijay Narayan for the reason that the impugned persons were said to have been assaulted by the accused revisionist Vijay Narayan and Ram Autar both. I am unable to agree. I find from the averments of the F.I.R. that the specific role for causing injury by means of Lathi to Smt. Maryam, Sahjad Ali was assigned to accused revisionist Vijai Narayan. The subsequent version of Sajhad Ali that Vijai Narayan and Ram Autar had assaulted him and his mother Smt. Maryam was an afterthought and was rightly discarded by the Additional Sessions Judge so far as complexity of Ram Autar was concerned. The circumstances that injured Sajhad Ali and Smt. Maryam both have specifically stated to have sustained injuries which were found on their person at the hands of accused revisionist Vijay Narayan fully proved that the said injuries were caused voluntarily by the accused revisionist Vijai Narayan. I am therefore, of the opinion that there was no illegality or impropriety on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in upholding the finding of conviction as against the accused revisionist Vijay Narayan. As regards the sentence I find that the accused revisionist has suffered a lot of mental agony since them. I, therefore, consider it expedient and in the interest of justice that instead of inflicting substantive sentence of imprisonment for 3 months the accused revisionist be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of the payment of the same sentence him to one month's R.I. The accused revisionist is directed to deposit the amount of fine of Rs.1000/- in the court below within six weeks failing which the learned court below shall proceed to recover the same from the accused revisionist according to law. With these observations the revision is dismissed. Revision Dismissed. ;