IMPORTANT POINT
The court can reduce a sentence to the time already served when considering the duration of custody and the circumstances of the case.

ORDER :

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein challenging the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 09/2009 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to ‘the learned first appellate court’) and judgment dated 09.02.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 594/2008 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court’).

2. Vide the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2009, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 224 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years’ RI with fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was also sentenced to serve six months’ additional simple imprisonment.

3. The petitioner challenged the said judgment before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, Rajasthan by way of filing appeal (No. 09/2009) and the learned first appellate court vide its judgment dated 0311.2009 partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 224 IPC and substantive sentence for two years, reduced the fine amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months’ default sentence was imposed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2008, Shankar Lal, ASI Gangapur City lodged a report inter alia alleging that at 11:10 AM, the petitioner Kamlesh, who was confined in the lockup at Police Station tried to bite his left hand. On seeing this, the guard asked him not to do so, to which, he threatened him to implicate in his death case. Thereafter, the Guard called him, upon which, he went there and tried to make him understand. He was taken outside from the lockup. It is alleged that when he was talking with the petitioner, suddenly, he pushed him and tried to flee away from there, upon which, he made noise. On hearing his shouting, Hammir Singh, Surendra Singh, Vinod and Jagdish came there and caught hold of him. On an earlier occasion also, the petitioner had fled away and he is in habit of fleeing away from custody. On the basis of the report, an FIR No. 161/2008 was registered at Police Station Gangapur City for offences under Sections 224 and 309 IPC and investigation was commenced.

5. After investigation, the police filed charge against the present petitioner for the aforesaid offence in the court concerned. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited documents. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, accused-petitioner did not produce any evidence in his favour.

6. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2009 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner, as above. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 03.11.2009. The learned first appellate court, while maintaining the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial court, reduced the fine amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.2,000/- by the learned first appellate court. Hence, this revision petition.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction, recorded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court but since the alleged incident is related to year 2008; he is in the corridors of the Court for the last 16 years and out of total sentence of two years, he has already served sentence of 11 months and 16 days, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned cou