JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.In this revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., the petitioner accused is challenging judgment dated 23.10.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 50/1996, by which, the appellate Court affirmed the judgment dated 16.10.1995 passed by Judl. Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 258/1993, whereby, learned trial Court punished the petitioner (herein) by way of passing sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, while granting benefit of probation for the offence under Section 279, I.P.C. 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging finding of both the Courts below but, it is prayed that petitioner is facing trial since 1993 for the incident which occurred on 12.1.1988. In the meantime, the petitioner also remained in custody for some days, therefore, it is prayed that after lapse of this much of time it would not be proper to send the petitioner to custody for the incident which occurred on 12.1.1988 and, accordingly, the substantive sentence of the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from 6 months' simple imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already served out by him and he may be ordered to be released. 3. 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 (in that case) the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. While citing the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case after 23 years it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner in judicial custody, therefore, sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from 6 months' imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 7. In my opinion, the incident took place in the year 1988 and, besides remaining in custody for some days, the petitioner has been facing litigation for last 23 years, 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." 8. While following the aforesaid judgment, the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner Vijay Singh is hereby partly allowed and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, I.P.C., the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate Nathdawara in Regular Criminal Case No. 258/1993 dated 16.10.1995 and confirmed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 50/1996 vide judgment dated 23.10.1996 is hereby reduced from 6 months' simple imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty of fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Since the accused-petitioner is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall automatically stand discharged upon depositing the amount of fine. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty of fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Since the accused-petitioner is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall automatically stand discharged upon depositing the amount of fine. To said extent, both the impugned judgments stand modified.Revision partly allowed. *******