1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT LIYAQAT ALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 116 OF 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 27, 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Jaipur District Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1996 whereby he upheld the judgment dated January 12, 1993 of Judicial Magistrate Chomu in Criminal Case No. 192 of1984 convicting the petitioner for offence under section 304 A IPC and reduced the sentence from 2 years RI to 3 months RI and maintained fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default 3 months R.I. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Ravi Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Liyaqat Ali against the order dated March 27, 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Jaipur District Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1996 whereby he upheld the judgment dated January 12, 1993 of Judicial Magistrate Chomu in Criminal Case No. 192 of 1984 convicting the petitioner for offence under section 304 A IPC 2 and reduced the sentence from 2 years RI to 3 months RI and maintained fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default 3 months R.I. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Jaipur District Jaipur upholding the judgment dated January 12, 1993 of Judicial Magistrate Chomu convicting the petitioner for offence under section 304 A IPC and reduced the sentence from 2 years RI to 3 months RI and maintained fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default 3 months R.I. The learned counsel for the petitioner made simple request to this court for reducing the period of sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner in confinement, which is 8 days in the instant matter. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission. The incident in the instant matter took place on May 15, 1984, which is 25 years ago. In these circumstances while maintaining the conviction of the 3 petitioner under section 304 A IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already under gone by him. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands canceled and he need not surrender. 3. For these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner under section 304 A IPC is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the period already under gone by him. Since the petitioner is on bail he need not to surrender and his bail bonds stands discharged. As the main petition has been disposed the stay application also stands disposed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/