The court can reduce a sentence based on the time already served, considering the circumstances surrounding the case.

Order :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.04.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.31/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura, by which the appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the judgment dated 27.08.2002 passed in Regular Cr. Case No.213/1985 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahpura, District Bhilwara, by which the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Suganchand, Administrator, Gram Seva Shahkari Samiti Limited, Shahpura lodged a report at Police Station Shahpura to the effect that the petitioner committed embezzlement of amount while holding the post of Manager at Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Shahpura. On the said report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 408, 477-A IPC , who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 38 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 27.08.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence. In defence, three witnesses were examined.

6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.04.2007.

Hence, this revision petition.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1984 and out of total sentence of three years’ S.I., the accused petitioner has already served more than two months of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the 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 counsel for the accused- petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1984 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of more than two months in custody out of three years of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 408 & 477-A of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Sections 408 & 477-A of IPC , the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending appl