1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 172 OF 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 20, 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1999 whereby appeal filed by the accused petitioner was rejected and the order dated March 11, 1999 of Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Criminal Case No. 450 of 1990 whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 279 IPC and sentenced to 3 months RI and fine of Rs. 200/- and under section 338 IPC sentenced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 300/- and under section 304 A IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 500 and in default one month, two months and 3 months imprisonment respectively. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Dharamveer Tholia, for the petitioner. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Hari Singh @ Hari Prasad against the order dated April 20, 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1999 whereby appeal filed by the accused petitioner was rejected 2 and the order dated March 11, 1999 of Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Criminal Case No. 450 of 1990 whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 279 IPC and sentenced to 3 months RI and fine of Rs. 200/- and under section 338 IPC sentenced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 300/- and under section 304 A IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 500 and in default one month, two months and 3 months imprisonment respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sikar whereby the conviction of the petitioner under sections 279, 338 and 304 IPC was maintained and he was sentenced 3 months RI and fine of Rs. 200/-, six months RI and fine of Rs. 300/- and one year RI and fine of Rs. 500 and in default one month, two months and 3 months imprisonment respectively. 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 3 confinement, which is 62 days in the instant matter. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission. The incident in the instant matter took place on August 5, 1990, which is 19 years ago. In these circumstances while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under sections 279, 338 and 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 sections 279 and 338 and 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/