IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.361/1999. Ganga Sahai Vs. The State of Rajasthan. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.S.K.Jain for the petitioner. Mr.Pradep Srimal P.P for the State. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 1.5.1999 passed by Judge Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder Case) Jaipur in Cr.Appeal No.55/99 whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 24.1.1995 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) & Judicial Magistrate No.14, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr.Case No.98/89 whereby she convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner ..2.. for the offence under Section 279 IPC with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month S.I and for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for 6 months S.I. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 1.5.1999 passed by Judge Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder Case) Jaipur in Cr.Appeal No.55/99 whereby he rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 24.1.1995 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) & Judicial Magistrate No.14, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr.Case No.98/89 whereby she convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month S.I and for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for 6 months S.I. ..3.. The brief facts of the case are that One Shri Bhimsain lodged a written report at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur alleging therein that on 21.1.1985 when Naresh Kumar was going to his shop on his Scooter, near Ramgali No.6 Chauraha accused was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Scooter because due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and subsequently died in hospital. Upon this report, the police registered a cae FIR No.11/85 for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. Thereafter the police submitted a challan before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.14, Jaipur City, Jaipur who framed charges against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC and 304-A IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused ..4.. petitioner. Statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C who denied charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The trial court after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 24.1.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above, against which the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the Judge, Special (Communal Riots/Mansingh Murder Case),Jaipur who vide his judgment and order dated 1.5.1999 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders passed by both the courts below, preferred the present revision petition before this Court. ..5.. Without going into the merit of the case Mr.S.K.Jain Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below but only requesting to this Court that he remained in judicial lockup 26 days, the occurrence took place on 21st January 1985 i.e 24 years ago, he is facing trial since last 24 years which tantamount to mental agony. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner is more than 52 years of age, having children of marriageable age and he is not a habitual offender. He therefore prayed that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the petitioner, if not, the petitioner should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. Mr.Pradeep Srimal learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. ..6.. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it proper to send back the petitioner to jail. Since the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for 26 days, ends of justice would be met in case the petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him. I maintain the fine awarded by the trial Court which may be deposited as per direction of the trial court. This revision petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the court below is modified as indicated above. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. K