Cr Rev 154/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Cr. Revision Petition No.154/2008 Kallu Versus State Date of Order ::: 07/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Anil Jain, for petitioner (accused) Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor. Instant petition has been filed by accused against judgment dt.14/11/07 whereby Sessions Judge, Dholpur dismissed his Cr. Appeal No.79/07 being time barred – as a consequence whereof, his conviction U/s 224, IPC in Cr. Case No.28/07 vide judgment dt. 29/06/07 passed by Judl. Mag. Rajakhera while awarding sentence of 2 years' RI with a fine of Rs.500/- (in default, further one month's RI) stood maintained. Only contention advanced by Counsel is that the alleged occurrence is of December, 2006 and the accused is in judicial custody since 10/12/06 and out of two years impugned sentence, substantial part whereof about almost one year and three months have already been undergone by him while maximum sentence as provided U/s 224, IPC is only of two years or fine or both. Counsel submits that it would meet ends of justice if the accused is Cr Rev 154/08 //2// sentenced to the term which he has already undergone, as aforesaid. Per contra, Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner (accused) was in police custody for offence U/s 302, IPC in FIR-161/06 and at that time, committed instant offence U/s 224, IPC and thus no leniency is required in such like matter for reduction in maximum punishment awarded by learned trial Magistrate, which does not call for interference in the facts of instant case. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in the FIR referred to by learned Public Prosecutor, the accused has already been granted post arrest bail U/s 439, CrPC pendente trial therein. As regards judgment of appellate court, suffice is to say that right of appeal to the accused ordinarily has not to be curtailed and against judgment dt.29/06/07, from the record, it appears that appeal was preferred on 10/09/07 while the accused was in custody and that apart, ordinarily in the facts of the case, appeal was not required to be dismissed merely on the ground of limitation and the court of appeal committed serious error in rejecting the appeal preferred by accused Cr Rev 154/08 //3// petitioner holding it being time barred. This Court has option to remand the matter back for re-consideration of appeal on merits but in the facts of the case, when the accused is in custody and has served out substantial part of imposed sentence of maximum punishment of two years as provided U/s 224, IPC, and the fact that only grievance raised is for reduction of the impugned sentence, no purpose is likely to serve for remanding the matter for appreciation of material in appeal on merits. Offence U/s 224, IPC is not only bailable but also punishable with imprisonment with a discretion for the term not exceeding two years or fine or both. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already undergone substantial part of maximum sentence, it would meet ends of justice, if the sentence impugned is reduced to the term already undergone by the accused. Consequently, revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction U/s 224, IPC, the sentence of two years' RI awarded vide judgment dt.29/06/07 is reduced to the term already undergone by petitioner. However, fine imposed vide judgment dt.29/06/07 is upheld. Upon deposit of the fine impugned, petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Records be returned to the courts concerned alongwith copy of this order. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/154CrRev08alrdyUGn.doc