V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J.
1. This appeal of Moolchand and Manohar is directed against the order of conviction recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 23-12-1970, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC and each one of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The incident out of which these criminal proceedings started had taken place in the year 1966, Two cross criminal cases were tried in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. Jaipur District, Jaipur. In the case in which the appellants were the accused, conviction was recorded, while in the other case, the accused persons facing the trial there in were acquitted However, it has been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the appellants that before the cases were decided by the trial court, the parties had entered into a compromise, but without the permission of the Court, effect could not be given to the compromise and, therefore, this order of conviction has been passed.
3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that looking to the time spent by the appellants to face the trial and looking to the fact that both the parties are now Jiving in peace and amity it will not he in the interest of justice to send the appellants to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them. He, therefore, suggested that instead of upholding the sentence, the accused appellants may be reprimanded under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This will serve the end of justice.
4. We have gone through the Judgment of the trial court. It is unfortunate that a criminal case of this nature was per ding before the Court for the last ten years. We can very well realise the agony the accused-appellants have to undergo while facing the trial and, therefore, the request made by the learned Counsel for the appellants appt are to be quite reasonable.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has, however, not resisted the acceptance of the request made by learned Counsel for the appellants.
6. The result is that the conviction of Moolchand and Manohar under Section 325 IPC is maintained and instead of upholding the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, we pit pose to set aside the aforesaid sentences and reprimand the accused-appellants under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
7. The appeal of the appellants is accordingly partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction; we set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded to them and admonish the accused-appellants for the acts committed by them. The fine, if paid by the accused, should be refunded to them.