JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., the petitioner is challenging judgment dated 22.2.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1994, whereby, the appellate Court affirmed conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate (First Class), Taranagar in Criminal Regular Case No. 96/1992 dated 5.4.1994 by which the petitioner was convicted for committing offence under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for offence under Section 457, I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment and 1 year's simple imprisonment for offence under Section 380, I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, 10 days' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the proceedings was initiated in connection with incident which allegedly took place on 27.11.1991, in which, there is allegation of theft of TV/VCR against the petitioner. Without challenging the finding of both the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner to custody for serving out the sentence after 20 years, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from 1 year to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner inasmuch as petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for more than two months. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of this Court, reported in 2002 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1655, Goda Ram v. State of Rajasthan , in which, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that incident is of the year 1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, therefore, ends of justice would meet if for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act-the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 3. 3. While citing the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case after 20 years it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner in judicial custody, therefore, sentence awarded to the petitioner for committing the alleged offence under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. may be reduced from 1 year's-imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 6. Admittedly, the incident is related to the year 1991. The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.1991. Upon dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner was taken into custody on 22.2.1996. Thereafter, his application for suspension of sentence was allowed by this Court on 19.4.1996 and he was released by the trial Court on 26.4.1996. He remained in judicial custody for more than two months but the fact remains that the incident is of the year 1991, therefore, I deem it just and proper to follow the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Godha Ram's case (supra), in which, following adjudication was made : "10. After perusing the record, it appears that the accused-petitioner has remained in jail from 16.9.1982 to 18.9.1982 and 19.4.1991 to 7.5.1991. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a case reported in 1987 R.C.C. 22, Narshingh v. State of Rajasthan . In that case 26 Kgs. Opium was recovered and looking to the fact that 16 years have passed, the accused-petitioners in that case were sentenced to the period already undergone by them by this Court but the order of fine was separately maintained. 11. Looking to the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained in jail from 16.9.1982 to 18.9.1982 and 19.4.1991 to 7.5.1991 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 16.9.1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, therefore, ends of justice would be met if for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him." 7. While following the aforesaid judgment, the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner Rakesh @ Roketiya is hereby partly allowed and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C., the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, as mentioned here in above, is hereby reduced from 1 year's simple imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner shall however deposit the amount of fine as ordered by the trial Court. Since the accused-petitioner is on bail therefore, his bail bonds shall automatically stand discharged upon depositing the amount of fine, as ordered by the trial Court.Revision partly allowed. *******