8. Now coming to sentence, according to advocate for the petitioner, revision petitioner was a student and is not a habitual offender and is not involved in any other criminal cases of this nature either prior to this case or subsequent to conviction, therefore, some lenient view is to be taken considering the age and nature of offence. The appellate Court in its judgment recorded that the petitioner is a M.Com student and there are no previous cases against him. According to advocate for the petitioner, the revision petitioner was in jail for about seven days and paid fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-. There is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 292 IPC. According to this Section only in case of second conviction there is one stringent punishment. 9. Considering the facts of the case, age of the accused and nature of offence, I feel that the request of the revision petitioner to treat the period already undergone as sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 292 IPC can be accepted. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence of two months imprisonment is modified and reduced to the period already undergone while confirming the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.
