SBCr.Revision No.223/1993- Gurmel Singh & anr v. State of Raj. Date of order:07.07.2009 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::: O R D E R Gurmel Singh & anr v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.223 OF 1993 ::: Date of order: 07th July, 2009 ::: P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr B.N. Kalla, for the petitioners Mr Mahipal Bisnhoi, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the Revision Petition on merits and prays for reducing the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 3. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar vide its judgment & order dated 15th July, 1985 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as under: SBCr.Revision No.223/1993- Gurmel Singh & anr v. State of Raj. Date of order:07.07.2009 2 of 4 n For offence under sec.467,IPC, one year's rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment; n For offence under sec.468, IPC, six months' rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.50/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, accused- petitioners preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed vide judgment & order dated 15th July, 1993, hence, this revision petition was preferred on behalf of accused petitioners. 5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the order of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court against accused petitioners. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to refer and consider facts of the case in detail. However, I have also examined the findings of both the courts below and I am satisfied that both the courts below have rightly convicted the accused persons for the above offences. SBCr.Revision No.223/1993- Gurmel Singh & anr v. State of Raj. Date of order:07.07.2009 3 of 4 6. So far as reduction in sentence of imprisonment is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the offence took place way back on 21st June, 1979 i.e. about 30 years ago. The accused- persons faced trial till 15th July, 1985 when order of conviction was passed by the trial court and thereafter, their appeal was pending till 1993 and then this Revision Petition is pending since then; hence, it is a 30 year old matter. In support of his submission, he also relied on the judgment in Sajjan Singh's case, reported in 1990 (1) RLW 101 wherein this Court reduced sentence of imprisonment of one year awarded under secs.468 & 471, IPC to a period of 12 days' imprisonment already undergone by the accused. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State did not oppose prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners seriously for reducing the sentence of imprisonment in view of the fact that the order of conviction has not been challenged by him. 8. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that it is 30 years' old matter and petitioners were released on bail by this Court while suspending his sentence SBCr.Revision No.223/1993- Gurmel Singh & anr v. State of Raj. Date of order:07.07.2009 4 of 4 of imprisonment vide order dated 20th August, 1993 and since then they are on bail. The accused petitioners have remained in custody for about 02 months as agreed by both the parties and looking to fact that it is a 30 years old case, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will be met in case sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court, is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners. The fine awarded by the trial court is upheld. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioners awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. [NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN],J. mma