Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) Counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision so far as it relates to the conviction. He pleads that if the Hon'ble Court deems it proper, then the accused petitioner may be ordered to pay compensation to the complainant. He further submits that co-accused has been acquitted. In this view of the matter, it would not be appropriate if the accused serves complete jail sentence after 9 years from the date of incident.
(2.) The learned RR though does no agree on this proposition that the sentence of jail should be converted into sentence of fine, but he considers that it would not be appropriate to serve the complete sentence after 9 years.
(3.) What may be noticed is that accused was convicted under Section 25, 27 and 32 of the Indian Telegraph Act and sentenced for six months S.I. for the offence took place on 13.5.1990.;