- (1.) The counsel fur both the parties have agreed tor final disposal of this appeal by a consent order.
(2.) The appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction under sections 324. 325/34 IPC. Vide impugned judgment of the Court below dated 19.5.2009, ail three appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 and 1/ 2 years each and fine of Rs. 500/- each. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal against conviction oh he appellants and restricts and his submission only on the question on question of sentence. I have heard learned counsel for both the parteis on the question of quantum of sentence.
(3.) The appellants are real brothers. Appellant no. 1 is 40 years old, whereas the appellants no. 2 and 3 are 33 and 24 years of age, respectively. THEy all are stated to be first time offender. It is noted in the impugned order on sentence that appellant no. 1 has already suffered imprisonment for 11 months, whereas appellants no. 2 and 3 have suffered imprisonment for and. 112 months each. THE fine imposed by the Court below on them is stated to have already been desposited by the appellants. Considering the facts and the appellants are in their youth and that they arc first time offender, this Court is of die opinion that interest of justice shall he served by sentencing the appellants to the sentence of imprisonment already suffered by them during trial of the case. Accordingly, impugned order on sentence is modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced to undergo sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them during trial of the criminal case against them. Their bail bonds are cancelled. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.;