JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 21.3.2002 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hindaun city in cr. Appeal no. 6/2000 whereby he dismissed the appeal of petitioner and maintained the conviction regarding offence under Sec.279/304A IPC arising out of judgment and order dated 19.5.2000 passed by learned Judl. Magistrate (JD), Hindaun city in cr. Case no. 229/1995 whereby he convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under: U/s. 279 IPC:- 3 months SI and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month imprisonment U/s. 304A IPC:- one year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default 2 months imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR No.575/1995 for the offences under Sec.279/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Hindaun city. After usual investigation, police filed challan before the concerned court/Magistrate, who framed the charges for the aforesaid offence, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above vide judgment dated 19.5.2000. 3. Against the said judgment dated 19.5.2000, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun city, who vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of trial court. Hence this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner. 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 petitioner may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody. 5. It is further contended that accused petitioner has remained in custody for approximately one month and 02 days. 6. It is also contended that accused petitioner is facing trial for the last approximately 20 years, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, 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. 7. 6. It is also contended that accused petitioner is facing trial for the last approximately 20 years, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, 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. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the courts below are just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that accused has remained in custody for approximately one month & 02 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. 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 courts below stand modified, as indicated here-in-above. Revision partly allowed.