S.K. Jain, J. - (1.) Mobeen, Shahid,Qamruddin, Naseer Ahmad, Sharfuddin, Zahid, Mukhtar Ahmad, Jabbar, Jaqeel Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad were charged under Section 147/307 read with Section 149; Section 325 read with Section 149; Section 324 read with Section 149; and Section 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. They were tried and convicted under the aforesaid sections by the learned trial court vide its order of conviction dated 21.4.79. After hearing them on the question of quantum of sentence,he vide his order of the same date, sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 325 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code; 11/2 years R.I. under Section 324 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code one years R.I. each under Sections 323 read with Section 147 Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is the judgement of conviction and order of sentence both dated 21.4.79 which has been appealed against by the appellants in this appeal and which requires my scrutiny of its sustainability. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined Ainul Haq, P.W.1, Riyazul Haq, P.W.2, Dr. K.B. Lal, P.W.3, Sunder Lal Srivastava, P.W.4, Maqbool Ahmad, P.W.5, Mohd. Islam, P.W.6,Ali Ahmad, P.W.7, Gauri Shankar Singh, P.W.8, Jai Prakash, P.W.9 and Dr. R.N. Bhargava, P.W.10 and proved on record Report Ext. Ka.1, copy of the F.I.R. Ka-7, injury reports of Riyaz Ahmad, Maqbool Ahmad, Ainul Haq and Abdul Jabbar, Exts. Ka-2,3,4 and 7 respectively. After the close of prosecution evidence the statements of accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. When asked to enter upon their defence they proved on record F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. The learned trial court believing the ocular account given by the prosecution witnesses supported by medical evidence, convicted the accused as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Riyaz Ahmad and Maqbool Ahmad, the injured complainants, have compromised the offence outside the court and an application to the effect supported by affidavits of these two injured persons was filed in this court on 6.12.94. It was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur for verification who had sent a report dated 20.1.95. He has certified the compromise deed on 11.1.95. Under the circumstances I grant permission to compound the offence with which they are charged qua Maqbool Ahmad and Riyaz Ahmad, consequently I acquit them of the charge under Sections 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149, Indian Penal Code with regard to the injuries caused by them on the persons of Riyaz Ahmad and Maqbool Ahmad. Now on to the offence under Sections 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 with regard to the injuries which the appellant had caused on the person of Ainul Haq. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he does not challenge the judgement of conviction but in view of the fact that the offence had been committed as back as on 25.9.79 where-after the appellants have faced protracted trial and suffered much and that it will not be in the interest of justice to send them to jail again as they are on bail. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the question of quantum of sentence which are as under: (i) that the appellants are middle aged persons; (ii) that none of them is a previous convict; (iii) that each one of them is the sole bread earned of his family; (iv) that each one of them remained on bail throughout the trial as also during the pendency of this appeal; and (v) that there is nothing on record to show that any one of them had abused the concession of bail given to him. In view of above, I feel that no useful purpose would be served if the accused are again sent to jail after a period of about 19 years because if they are lodged in prison they are likely to mix up with hardened criminals lodged therein and there is every possibility of the appellants themselves turning into hardened criminals. The ends of justice would be squarely met if the period of substantive sentence as awarded by the learned trial court is reduced to the period already undergone and each one of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. Out of total amount of Rs. 2500/- being deposited as fine an amount of Rs. 1000/- will be paid to Ainul Haq as compensation after notice to him or in case of his death to his legal representatives, after notice to them. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed. Appeal Allowed Partly.;