JUDGMENT 1. - Accused petitioner has filed this revision petition against his conviction and, sentence recorded by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tijara in criminal case No. 760/77 who convicted him under Sec. 16/54 (D) of the Excise Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, and the appeal filed by the accused having been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas on 27-6-1983. 2. Earlier to entertainment of this revision petition, this Court accepted the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act since the impugned order is of 1983. 3. The offence relates to year 1977 and there were two cases against the petitioner one under Sec. 379 IPC and the another under Sec. 16/54 (D) of the Excise Act. He was held guilty for both the cases in which he preferred appeals. The petitioner has not challenged his conviction and sentenced which was confirmed in appeal in case under Sec. 379 IPC. The accused did not appear at the time of disposal of the appeal and the same was dismissed in his absence. It, however, could not be communicated to him and he did not come in revision before this Court. It was in 1988 that he was arrested and brought before the Court after which he filed this petition. 4. Since there is concurred finding of two courts, it is not worth while to go into the merits of the case and learned counsel also abandons his arguments which, in my opinion, is a right attitude since both the courts below have already appreciated the evidence, however, he confines his arguments to this quantum of sentence as the incident relates to 1977 and the petitioner being a victim of circumstances due to lack of correct legal advice for which he could not even approach the Court in time and persue his appeal properly. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the grounds submitted for reduction of sentence and I am in agreement with the same. The offence relates to 14-11-75 and it past more than 13 years that this case has been pending. The accused has been in jail since July, 1988 and this revision petition has been filed in 1989. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the grounds submitted for reduction of sentence and I am in agreement with the same. The offence relates to 14-11-75 and it past more than 13 years that this case has been pending. The accused has been in jail since July, 1988 and this revision petition has been filed in 1989. He has already remained in jail for about six months and, in my opinion, the end of justice would meet in case his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of six months instead of one year. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed, conviction of the petitioner is maintained but his sentence is reduced from one years rigorous imprisonment to six month rigorous imprisonment and the fine imposed is maintained.Revision petition partly allowed. *******