ORDER : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 26.4.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Ajmer in cr. Appeal no. 141/2005 (13/2005) whereby the judgment dated 14.1.2005 passed by learned Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Ajmer in complaint case no.106/90 (5/87) was upheld by which the trial court convicted the petitioners as under: U/s. 494/108 IPC : Sentenced to 02 years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 months imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the petitioners, and upon that complaint, after usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned court/Magistrate. The learned Magistrate framed charges took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sec.494,120,109, 114 and 497 IPC, to which the petitioners denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 04 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioners under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioners as indicated above vide judgment dated 14.1.2005. 3. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence dated 14.1.2005, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2006. 4. Against the said judgment dated 26.4.2006, this appeal has been preferred by the accused petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced for the period already undergone by them in custody on the grounds that they are old persons of 63 and 60 years age respectively, having children of marriageable age, the occurrence took place on 19.5.1987 i.e. 27 years ago, they are facing trial since then, they remained in custody for quite long period, they are not habitual offenders, no case is pending against them, hence they should be released on probation, if not, then their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated herein above. 6. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that accused has remained in custody for quite long period i.e. 48 days/years, they are not the habitual offenders, no case is made out against them, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. 9. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction of the petitioners is maintained. (ii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused petitioners was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand canceled. (iv) Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. Petition allowed.