The court has the discretion to consider the facts and circumstances of each case, including the gravity of the crime and the time the case has been pending, in determining the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - 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. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that revision petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the sentence passed by the courts below."

3. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year 2001 and the present revision petitions have been pending since the year 2008.

4. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 525/2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu vide judgment dated 14.02.2007, convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; for the offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; for the offence under Section 304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; total fine amount Rs. 6500/-; in default of payment of total fine amount, he was ordered to undergo three months simple imprisonment. However, on appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu vide judgment dated 29.05.2008, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 337 IPC, with the further observation that offence under Section 279 IPC is included in Section 304A IPC. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the learned Appellate Court to the extent of Section 304A IPC only and was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

5. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 526/2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu vide order of conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2007, convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; for the offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; for the offence under Section 304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; total fine amount Rs. 6500/-; in default of payment of total fine amount, he was ordered to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Appeal preferred there against by the learned appellate court was dismissed.

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

7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. 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