The court may reduce the sentence to time already served, considering the long pendency of the case and principles of restorative justice.

Order :

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2004 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.741/2000, whereby the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable u/S 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC. For offence u/S 279 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. For offence u/S 337 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/-. For offence u/S 338 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and for offence u/S 304-A IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo one years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 15.09.2004 passed by the trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing No.11/2004 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota, whereby the learned Court vide order dated 14.02.2006 had rejected the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner submits that the present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 1999 and this revision petition has been pending since year 2006. Counsel makes only a limited prayer 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, which is 15 days.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:-

“43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said -“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.”

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by him.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan; SLP(Crl.) No. 6152/2024 and Chander Shekhar Vs. State of Rajasthan; Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024 and 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:-

Vinod Kumar (Supra)

“Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1990 and that the appella