JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - The petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.4.1997 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, in case FIR No. 155 dated 6.9.1990 under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code Police Station City Dadri vide which petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence committed by him under Section 279 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence committed by him under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. It was further ordered that in case of default in payment of fine, accused will have to undergo RI for a period of three months. Againt this judgment and order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, which was dismissed on 18.4.1998 upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story is that on 6.9.1990 at about 6.00 PM. Smt. Naraini Devi wife of Pehlad Rai, resident of Charkhi Dadri, was going to the Shiv tample for offering prayers. She was being followed by her son Radhey Shyam. When Smt. Naraini Devi reached near the Higher Secondary School for boys Rajesh appellant came from the opposite direction driving scooter No. HYT-9391. The case of the prosecution is that the said scooter was being driven by the appellant at a fast speed rashly and negligently, as a result of which it hit Smt. Naraini Devi, who fell on the ground and received serious injury on her head and minor injuries on the other parts of her body. Radhey Shyam took Smt. Naraini Devi in a rickshaw in the Civil Hospital, Charkhi Dadri where she was admitted. After some time, Smt. Naraini Devi succumbed to the injuries suffered by her. 3. Accordingly, FIR No. 155 dated 6.9.1990 was recorded and the accused was charge sheeted on 28.11.1990 under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined, PW-1, Dr. Ishwar Singh, PW-2 Kesho Ram, PW-3 Suraj Bhan, PW-4 Dr. Suresh Chander and PW-5 Complainant Radhey Shayam, PW6 HC Mahender Singh and, PW-7 ASI Daya Kishan and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 5. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined, PW-1, Dr. Ishwar Singh, PW-2 Kesho Ram, PW-3 Suraj Bhan, PW-4 Dr. Suresh Chander and PW-5 Complainant Radhey Shayam, PW6 HC Mahender Singh and, PW-7 ASI Daya Kishan and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner pleaded false implication and his innocence and denied the prosecution allegations. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the commencemnt of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the incident relates back to the year 1990. He submits that the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for over 13 years. He, however, submits that he does not want to press the petition on merits but prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to that of already undergone. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel prays that the petitioner does not deserve any lenient view and that the sentence awarded by the trial Court be upheld. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the incident relates to the year as back as 1990 and the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, it will not be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is now directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The ends of justice would be served if the sentence of R.I. awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone. So ordered. However, the sentence of fine is upheld. 10. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Order accordingly.