JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (for short, 'the appellate Court') whereby learned appellate court has upheld the judgment dated 07.05.2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, 'the trial court') convicting the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC as well as offence under Section 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act 1998. 2. The learned trial Court after holding the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offences handed down sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in relation to offence under Section 304A IPC, six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 279 IPC. That apart, for offence under Section 3/181 Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. It is further ordered by the learned trial court that accused-petitioner is required to undergo sentences for 5 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court by the impugned judgment upheld the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court maintaining the sentences awarded to him. It is in that background that the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is not challenging the conviction in this revision petition but he is simply craving for reducing the sentences awarded by the leaned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court. For substantiating this argument learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the incident occurred on 31.05.1999 and since then more than one and half decade have elapsed during which accused petitioner has suffered harassment and mental agony, therefore, it is a fit case, wherein limited indulgence may be granted to the petitioner by reducing the sentence, which he has already served. Mr. Garg further submits that after the judgment of the learned appellate Court accused petitioner has already undergone the sentence for 17 days and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is desirable to reduce the sentence already served by the petitioner. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Bharadwaj has vehemently opposed the prayer of the accused petitioner. Mr. Garg further submits that after the judgment of the learned appellate Court accused petitioner has already undergone the sentence for 17 days and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is desirable to reduce the sentence already served by the petitioner. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Bharadwaj has vehemently opposed the prayer of the accused petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding against the accused petitioner and therefore it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the extent the accused petitioner has already undergone. In the alternative, learned public prosecutor submits that at least bereaved family be awarded compensation for the death of bread-winner of the family, who was 50 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has hardly deposited Rs. 2,000/- as fine instead of Rs. 6,500/- imposed by the learned trial Court for being disbursed to the bereaved family as compensation. 6. Having considered the submissions, in my opinion, the passage of time of more than one and a half decades can very well be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence handed down to the accused petitioner by modifying the same to the extent the accused-petitioner has already served. Moreover, mental harassment suffered by the petitioner since occurrence of the incident and status of the accused-petitioner as a tempo driver are significant for acceding to his prayer. In this view of the matter it is just an appropriate to grant indulgence to the petitioner to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court. 7. Accordingly, this revision petitioner is allowed in part and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the sentence of 17 days which he has already undergone. At this stage submission of the learned public prosecutor for awarding compensation to the bereaved family deserves due credence and taking into account the entire fact scenario and a vital fact that the accused-petitioner has not deposited the entire amount of fine, which was to be given as compensation to the bereaved family, the accused petitioner is directed to pay fine worth Rs. 20,000/- excluding the amount already deposited by the accused petitioner before the learned trial court. 20,000/- excluding the amount already deposited by the accused petitioner before the learned trial court. The requisite amount of fine be deposited by the petitioner within two months from the date of judgment. The learned trial court upon deposition of fine by the petitioner shall call upon the bereaved family by giving a notice for disbursement of fine as compensation. 8. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds are, hereby cancelled. It is observed that if the requisite amount of fine is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period of two months, the petitioner will serve the entire sentence handed down by the learned trial Court. *******