1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT KANWAR PAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 154 OF 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 11, 2000 of Special Judge (Communal Riots) Tonk in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1998 whereby appeal filed by the accused petitioner was rejected and the order dated August 19, 1996 of Judicial Magistrate Uniara in Criminal Case No. 283 of 1991 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 279 IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200 in default to one months additional simple imprisonment and under section 304 A IPC and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment fine of Rs. 500 and in default one month simple imprisonment. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. V.P.Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kanwar Pal against the order dated April 11, 2000 of Special Judge (Communal Riots) Tonk in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1998 whereby appeal filed by the accused petitioner was rejected and the 2 order dated August 19, 1996 of Judicial Magistrate Uniara in Criminal Case No. 283 of 1991 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 279 IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200 in default to one months additional simple imprisonment and under section 304 A IPC and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment fine of Rs. 500 and in default one month simple imprisonment. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment of the Special Judger (Communal Riots) Tonk whereby the conviction of the petitioner under sections 304A and 279 IPC was maintained and he was sentenced to suffer Two years Simple Imprisonment and Six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 and Rs.200/-. 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 confinement, which is 86 days in the 3 instant matter. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission. The incident in the instant matter took place on September 6, 1991, which is 18 years ago. In these circumstances while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under sections 304 A and 279 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 304 A IPC and 279 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/