ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 13th of February 2015, passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Bikaner (for short, learned appellate Court), whereby learned appellate Court, while rejecting the appeal preferred by petitioner, affirmed verdict dated 5th of April 2014, rendered by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner. 2. Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 5th of April 2014, convicted the accused- petitioner for offence under Sections 336, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of three months for offence under Section 336 IPC, simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment under Section 337 and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 2000, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The facts, in brief, are that on 22nd of September, 1998 complainant Ramkaran submitted a report at Police Station Naya-Sahar, Bikaner stating, inter-alia, therein that two ladies Toli and Kamla sustained electric shock at 8 PM on 17th of September 1998 and out of them Toli died. It was alleged that the incident so happened on account of the illegal electric connection taken by Bajranglal and his sons Omprakash and Gopal Ram. On the basis of report, a First Information Report was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested. On filing charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charge for offence under Sections 336, 337, 304A and Section 39 of the Electricity Act against the petitioner and on denial he was put on trial. 4. In order to prove charge against accused-petitioner, prosecution examined nine witnesses. Subsequently, statement of accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and learned trial Court proceeded to hear final arguments. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, by its verdict dated 5th of April, 2014, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as aforesaid for offence under Sections 336, 337, 304A however, allowed him the benefit of doubt in respect of charged offence under Section 39 of the Electricity Act. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, by its verdict dated 5th of April, 2014, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as aforesaid for offence under Sections 336, 337, 304A however, allowed him the benefit of doubt in respect of charged offence under Section 39 of the Electricity Act. 5. Feeling dismayed with verdict dated 5th of April 2014, the petitioner approached learned appellate Court by filing an appeal but the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 13th of February, 2015 in want of appearance. It is, in that background, petitioner has invoked re-visional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he is not challenging indictment and conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences but simply craving for leniency in the matter of punishment. Learned counsel would contend that looking to the criminal delinquency of the petitioner some reprove may be given in the quantum of punishment by reducing the same to the extent already undergone by him. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has already undergone the sentence for a period of more than two and half months out of the maximum substantive sentence of six months' simple imprisonment, therefore, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence in the matter of sentence. Lastly, learned counsel submits that in totality of circumstances and considering the fact that incident is almost two decades old, punishment awarded to the petitioner be altered by reducing the same to the period he has already undergone. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the proven criminal delinquency of the petitioner, no reprove in the quantum of punishment is desirable. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record. 9. The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in the instant revision petition, lies in narrow compass inasmuch as learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned challenge to his indictment and conviction for the proved offences. Now, the only question which requires consideration is the quantum of sentence handed down to the petitioner by learned trial Court and confirmed by learned appellate Court. Now, the only question which requires consideration is the quantum of sentence handed down to the petitioner by learned trial Court and confirmed by learned appellate Court. There remains no quarrel that incident has occurred in September 1998 and since then almost two decades have elapsed and furthermore petitioner has already served the sentence of almost two and half months, therefore, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to that of already undergone, while maintaining the fine. 10. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, the present revision deserves to be partly allowed in the terms that while maintaining the conviction of appellant, his sentence is reduced to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. 11. Resultantly, the revision petition is hereby accepted in part. While upholding the conviction of the petitioner, as recorded by trial court and affirmed by appellate court, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned trial court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. He shall have to deposit the amount of fine Rs. 2,500/- within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which the State shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.