The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances of the case, even when the conviction is upheld.

Judgment :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.26/2005 by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, upheld the judgment dated 13.09.2005 passed in Criminal Original Case No.198/1997 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence as under:-

(i) Section 420 IPC – One year’s R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ S.I.

(ii) Section 471 IPC – One year’s R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.1992, Ratan Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Balotra alleging that the accused-petitioner Jai Singh submitted a forged B.Ed. Marksheet obtained from Harishchandra Post Graduate College, Varanasi and got appointed as a teacher in a primary school in Panchayat Samiti, Gwalnada on 31.03.1991. Thereafter, his service was terminated on 31.05.1991 but he was reinstated on 10.08.1991 at Raj. Primary School, Gwalnada and received salary & other benefits based on forged documents. The forgery made by petitioner was revealed following an inquiry by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer. Upon inquiry, it was found that the accused-petitioner neither took admission nor studied in the aforesaid college. Upon said report, the Police registered a case against the accused-petitioner and commenced investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan against the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Section 420, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 13.09.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.

6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2007.Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner.

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 1992 and out of total sentence of one year’s R.I., the accused petitioner has already served about 10 days 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 1992 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 10 days in custody out of one year 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 420 &