JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The present case arises out of Dugda P.S. Case No. 6 of 2007 dated 19.04.2007, G.R. No. 291 of 2007, T.R. No. 186 of 2009.

4. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 10.03.2014 passed by learned Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) whereby the order passed by the learned court of A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat has been affirmed. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code; 6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code; 6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days and the sentence was directed to run concurrently. The learned Appellate Court confirmed the conviction under all the Sections except under Section 323 of the IPC. Thus, ultimately the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 341/504/290 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence at all is made out against the petitioner.

So far as Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the complainant was not moving towards any direction and therefore merely because it is alleged that the petitioner stood before the complainant with a stick, offence under Section 341 IPC is not made out.

So far as offence under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel submits that no person did any act out of alleged provocation and therefore no offence under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is made out.

Learned counsel also submits that offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner as land of the petitioner was acquired and therefore, he was at the place of occurrence as he used to visit the office regularly for the purposes of grant of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that so far as section 341 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not necessary that the person should be moving in any direction and basic ingredients of offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is made out in the present case. He further submits that so far as ingredient of offence under Section 504 and Section 290 are concerned, they are clearly made out in the present case and there are concurrent findings by the learned courts below which do not call for any interference by this court. Learned counsel submits that the appellate court has acquitted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the custody of the petitioner has been at least from 21.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 as the bail order was passed by this court on 02.05.2014. He submits that thereafter a few days must have been taken for furnishing the bail bond before the learned court below. He also submits that it has come in evidence that the petitioner was in drunken state and that the offence is his first offence, so some lenient view may be taken and the sentence be modified. He also submits that if found proper the fine amount may be increased and the punishment be limited to the period in custody already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that so far as these sections are concerned, there is no minimum punishment as such prescribed in the Indian Penal Code.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the case was registered on the basis of a written report of the info