JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Sher Khan was tried for the offences under section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura. By the judgment dated March 18, 1976 he was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50/- in default to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment on the first count and nine months's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100,/-, in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment on the second count. 2. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara on April 28, 1978 and the conviction and the sentences awarded were affirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision petition on merits but prays for a lenient view to be taken in the matter in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts pointed out by him to substantiate his prayer are, that the matter relates to the year 1968 when the petitioner was below 21 years of age and that he had already remained behind the bars for a period of about two months. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this prayer. 5. The alleged incident relates to April 6, 1968. The petitioner had to suffer a long protracted trial for a period of eight years up to 1976. The appellate court also took about two years to decide the appeal. The age of the petitioner was below 21 years of age at the time of the incident as is evident from the age mentioned by him and the estimation of the trial Court at the time of his statement at the trial. The petitioner had remained in custody for one month and twenty five days. In such circumstances, I do not consider it a proper to send the petitioner behind the bars after a lapse of fourteen years since the date of the occurrence. The ends of justice would meet if the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period he had already suffered. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid charges is maintained. The ends of justice would meet if the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period he had already suffered. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid charges is maintained. The substantive sentences awarded on two counts are reduced to the period, the petitioner had remained in custody. The sentence of fine is however maintained. One month's time is allowed to the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court.Revision partly allowed. *******