The main legal point established is the court's discretion in sentencing, considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and the precedent of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone in cases of prolonged legal proceedings and financial hardship.

ORDER

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent.

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2002.

4. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.06.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.22/2001 (154/2000), 20/2001 (152/2000) & 21/2001 (153/2000) respectively, whereby the judgment dated 01.12.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.198/2000, 196/2000 and 197/2000 respectively convicting the revisionist- petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, and his sentence was reduced from one year R.I. to six month's R.I. in each case and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further three months S.I in each case.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 04.07.2002 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Applications (SOS) No.74/2002, 75/2002 & 76/2002 respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

8. This Court takes note of the fact that while suspending the sentence of the petitioner on 04.07.2002, this Hon'ble Court has already observed that the complete fine amount has been deposited.

9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

'There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.'

Haripada Das (Supra)

'...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...'

10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petitions are partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.