- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri A. K. Varma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri D. N. Yadav, learned AG. A appearing for the State.
(2.) REVISIONIST, Kewla Prasad, and three others were convicted under Section 323/34, 325/34 and 452, I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, one year and six months respective ly. Kewla Prasad, Daya Shankar, and Avinash were further convicted under Sec tion 324/34, I. P. C. and were further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1984 filed by them was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad, vide judg ment and order dated 22-8-1984. Present criminal revision was filed on behalf of all the convicts but was ad mitted on behaif of Kewla Prasad only on the point of semence. Revision on behalf of Daya Shankar Avinash and Satish Chandra was rejected vide order dated 24-8-84. As regards Kewla Prasad, it is con tended that at the time of filing of the revision he was 71 years old and he has already suffered imprisonment for about a month. There has been no untoward inci dent since after the present incident.
(3.) IT is not disputed that Kewla Prasad was 71 years old at the time of filing of the revision and he must have been now 4 years old. Considering the age of the revisionist Kewla Prasad and the period for which he has already been in jail, I think a sentence of imprisonment already undergone shall meet the ends of justice. Revision is partly allowed. Convic tion of the revisionist, Kewla Prasad, on all counts, is upheld. Sentence of imprison ment is reduced to the period already under gone. Revision partly allowed. .;