IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.385/1999. Nazmuddin Vs. The State of Rajasthan. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.L.L.Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.Pradep Srimal P.P for the State. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 27.5.1999 passed by Judge Mansingh Hatya Kand/Communal Riots Court, Jaipur in Appeal No.91/99 whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 18.3.96 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3 Sr.Dvn, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr.Case No.846/88 whereby he convicted the accused petitioner ..2.. for the offence under Section 338 IPC and sentenced him to 1 year R.I with a fine of Rs.500/- and R.I of 3 months with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 279 and he had to undergo further imprisonment in default of payment of fine. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 27.5.1999 passed by Judge Mansingh Hatya Kand/Communal Riots Court, Jaipur in Appeal No.91/99 whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 18.3.96 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3 Sr.Dvn, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr.Case No.846/88 whereby he convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 338 IPC and sentenced him to 1 year R.I with a fine of Rs.500/- and R.I of 3 ..3.. months with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 279 and he had to undergo further imprisonment one month in default of payment of fine. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders passed by both the courts below, preferred the present revision petition before this Court. Without going into the merit of the case Mr.L.L.Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below. He submitted that the occurrence took place on 21 years ago, he is facing trial since last 21 years which tantamount to mental agony. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner remained in judicial custody for 54 days and he is not a habitual offender. ..4.. 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. In view of the above, since the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for 54 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