Order

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the revisionist-petitioner challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.56/2001 filed by petitioner-Vishram whereby learned Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner and the order dated 02.07.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, in First Class, Bassi, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.48/95 was upheld, whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist-petitioner as under:-

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence awarded against the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by the Coordinate Bench of of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No.10/2006 (S.O.S.) filed in this petition. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist-petitioner surrendered himself on 16.01.2006 and was released from judicial custody on 21.01.2006, therefore, he has served the sentence for about 6 days. Learned counsel also submits that the incident is said to be occurred in the year 1995. The learned trial Court completed the trial and passed the judgment in the year 2002 and learned Appellate Court decided the appeal vide order dated 16.01.2006 and this petition is pending since 2006. Therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is suffering the agony of trial, appeal and this revision petition for almost last 30 years. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that now the age of the revisionist-petitioner is between 55 to 60 years, therefore, a liberal view be taken in deciding this petition.

3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel makes a limited prayer that without emphasizing on merits/demerits of the case and while maintaining the conviction awarded against the revisionist-petitioner, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner and submits that in this matter, the charge against the revisionist-petitioner is of causing death of a 16 year old boy by rash and negligent driving, therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is not entitled to get any liberal view from this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, the incident in this case occurred in the year 1995, therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is suffering the agony of trial, appeal and this revision petition for last almost 30 years. He has remained in judicial custody for about 6 days.

7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, 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:-

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 fa