JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 16.1.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui in cr. Appeal no. 37/2001 whereby he has upheld the judgment dated 12.7.2001 passed by Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bandikui in cr. Case no. 442/1997 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 91(6) of Raj. Land Revenue Act, 1956 and sentenced to one year SI and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a report was lodged by the Tehsildar and upon that, an FIR was registered and police started investigation. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 12.7.2001 convicted the petitioner under Section 91(6) of Act as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment dated 12.7.2001, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.1.2002 and order of trial court was upheld. Hence this revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody on the grounds that petitioner has remained in custody for approximately 03 days, he is facing trial for the last approximately 18 years as occurrence took place on 5.7.1997, he is not habitual offencer, no case is pending against him, he is an old man of 59 years having children of marriageable age, hence he should be released on probation, if not, then his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein above. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/s that accused has remained in custody for approximately 03 days, he is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 8. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained. (ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand canceled. (iv) Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. Revision Partly Allowed as above.