- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order of Sri S. S. Gupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1983 dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction of the applicants under Sec tion 353, I. P. C. and sentence of 3 months R. I. awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur by judgment and order dated 17-2-82 in criminal case No. 781 of 1981.
(2.) BOTH the applicants brought one patient Shyam for treatment at P. H. C. Maudaha, district Hamirpur. In the opinion of the doctor it was a case of suspected poisoning. When he started to write a report both the accused applicants caught his hands and had given him threat to kill him if he would report the matter to the police. They wanted to take away the patient forcib ly in their tractor but they were restrained by Nursing Assistant Suresh Chandra Dixit (P. W. 2) and compounders Ram Autra and Ram Prasad. The matter was reported to the police station. BOTH the applicants were tried and the trial court after examining the evidence on record found the applicants guilty of the offence punishable under Sec tion 353 I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 3 months R. I. each. BOTH the accused Ap plicants preferred the appeal as stated above, which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, confirming the conviction and sentence of the applicants awarded by the trial Judge. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it a case in which the ap plicants were sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 months in the year 1982 in connection with the incident which took place on 22. 10. 80. It would not be proper to send the applicants again behind the bar after a period of 16 years. The sentence of im prisonment may be converted into a fine. I have given my anxious thought to the submission made on behalf of the ap plicants. It is true that the applicants were convicted and sentenced for an incident which took place about 16 years back. The sentence awarded by the trial court is only three months. In our opinion it would not be proper to relegate the accused behind the bar after such long time. A fine of Rs. 200 would serve the ends of justice.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the revision is dis missed with the modification that the con viction awarded by the trial court and af firmed by the lower appellate court is main tained. However, the sentence is converted to a fine of Rs. 200 each, to be deposited within a period of three months from today. In case the fine is not deposited by the ap plicants, each of the applicants will undergo a sentence of one month simple imprison ment. Revision dismissed. .;