SBCr.Rev.P.No.315/2005. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.315/2005. Ramakant Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order : 19/3/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kapil Sharma for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment & order dated 28/1/2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur and order dated 28/3/2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur vide judgment dated 28/1/2003 convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. For offence u/S.279 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- and for offence u/S.304A IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentence to undergone one month simple imprisonment was imposed. The appellate court SBCr.Rev.P.No.315/2005. 2 dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence and has argued that petitioner has remained in jail for more than 5 months since the date of sentence i.e. 28/1/2003 in relation to the incident which took place on 27/12/1998. Almost a decade has passed from the date of incident and petitioner has substantially served the sentence. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Rakesh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2000(1) R.C.C. 510, Prakash Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1987 W.L.N. (UC) 439, Chhitar Vs. State of Rajasthan : R.L.W. 1990(1) 223, Shyamlal Vs. State : R.L.W. 1988(1) 679, Mangtu Khan Vs. State : R.C.C. June, 1989 271 and Bhagirath Singh Vs. State : 1984 W.L.N. (UC) 316. This Court while considering similar prayer at the instance of the accused petitioners in all these cases, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and argued that accused petitioner does not deserve to be let off on the period of sentence already undergone and in any case if that is considered, the amount of fine which is part of the sentence is required to be enhanced. SBCr.Rev.P.No.315/2005. 3 Having regard to the facts of the case and keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid judgments while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct that period of sentence of two years awarded to the petitioner by the trial court shall be substituted by the period already undergone by him with respect to both the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC with further direction that the amount of fine imposed for each of the offences shall be liable to be raised from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2500/- thus totaling Rs.5000/-. In the event of failure of petitioner to pay enhanced find with the trial court within two months from today, the original order of sentence shall stand revive. This criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-