Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.

Instant criminal writ petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash and set aside the judgments dated 29.7.2013 (Annex.1) and 11.8.2016 (Annex.2) passed by both the learned courts below whereby the accused petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 279 IPC to three months simple imprisonment, Rs.100/- fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo seven days imprisonment and for the offence he has been convicted under section 304A to six months simple imprisonment, Rs. 100/- fine and in default of payment of fine, the accused petitioner has to further undergo seven days imprisonment and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are the complainant Maruf Ahmed lodged an FIR No.182/2009 at P.S Wazirpur for the offence under sections 279 and 304A IPC. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance against the petitioner and framed the charges. The accused petitioner denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 witnesses and got exhibited 8 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C but he did not produce any evidence in defence.

2. Learned trial court after vide its judgment dated 29.7.2013 convicted the accused petitioner for the offences as indicated herein above. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused petitioner preferred a criminal appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.8.2016 and the judgment passed by the learned trial court was affirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the courts below but submits that the sentence undergone by the accused shall be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement. Counsel submits that the accused petitioner has been awarded total sentence of six months, out of which he has already remained in judicial custody for approx. five months. Counsel has further that the accused petitioner is quite young of age, it is the first offence of his life, he is a masonry worker and having the liability of his family members. Counsel has requested that either the accused petitioner be given the benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act if not then the accused petitioner be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement as the accused petitioner has already remained in custody near about 5 months out of the total sentence. Learned PP has opposed the same.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner, learned PP for the State and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me.

5. Looking to the fact that the accused petitioner is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments passed by both the learned courts, the fact that the accused petitioner has already remained in judicial lock up for near about 5 months out of the total sentence of six months, it is first offence of his life, not a habitual offender and having sole liability to maintain his family, it would be in the interest of justice that the accused petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him in custody, if not required in other case.

6. The instant criminal writ petition as well as the application filed by the accused petitioner stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Writ petition and application of accused disposed of as above.