V.S. Kokje, J. - (1.) Heard on application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner had filed this revision petition beyond limitation claiming that he had no knowledge of the appellate order passed by the Session Court till 6.9.96. The appellate order shows the appellant s absence, but his counsel was present. Looking to the circumstances of the case it appears to be true that the petitioner had no knowledge of the appellate order till 6.9.96. The delay in filing this revision petition is, therefore, condoned and the revision petition is directed to be registered.
(2.) With the consent of the parties the matter was finally heard as only six months sentence is involved in a case in which the offence was said to have been committed on 5th August, 1982. The petitioner has also undergone about 2 months sentence. The conviction by the trial court which was upheld by the appellate court does not deserve to be interfered with. However, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel on the question of sentence. The offence was committed on 5th August, 1982 and the petitioner was convicted by the trial court in the year 1987. Thereafter, his appeal was decided in the year 1994 and the petitioner came to know of it on 6.9.96. The sentence imposed is six months with Rs. 100/- as fine. In the circumstances of this case it appears to be just and proper to modify the sentence of imprisonment to that which is under gone already by the petitioner with Rs. 200/- as fine. The revision petition is allowed and the sentence is modified as above. The fine shall be deposited within 15 days. The petitioner shall be released forthwith on depositing the fine if his detention is not required in any other case.;