JUDGMENT : Vinod Kumar Bharwani, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant, namely Basant Kumar against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.07.1992 passed by the Court of Judge, Special Court, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota, in Sessions Case No.160/1991, whereby the appellant was convicted & sentenced as follows :- “For offence u/s. 3 (1) (10) of the Act of 1989: - The appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. “For offence u/s.323 I.P.C.: The appellant was imposed a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. As per prosecution case, complainant– Rajendra Kumar Meena, L.D.C. A.C.M. Court, Digod lodged a written-complaint on 07.04.1991 at about 12:10 in the night alleging therein that on 06.04.1991 at around 05:30 P.M. when he was returning from Office, the accused & one Latoor (co-accused) on the way misbehaved/insulted and started beating & abused him by using caste oriented language. They also snatched the petitioner’s bag and inflicted injuries on his head & other parts of the body. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him. He pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. He was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. 3. After considering the facts & circumstances of the case and material available on record, ld. Trial Court convicted the present appellant for the aforesaid offences, and granted the benefit of probation to the co-accused (Latoor) vide its judgment dt.06.07.1992. 4. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant are that the findings arrived at by the ld. Trial Court regarding conviction & sentence are patently illegal & perverse to the facts on record. In the special circumstances, where the matters are of extremely old pendency & unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits and, thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The sentence, so awarded to the appellant was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 20.07.1992 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 266/1992. The sentence, so awarded to the appellant was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 20.07.1992 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 266/1992. Lastly, counsel submits that he shall not assail the conviction of the appellant and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case. 7. Since the present appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, had observed as under:- “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 9. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by this Court in Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 CriLR 1294 and in Puran Singh Vs. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by this Court in Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 CriLR 1294 and in Puran Singh Vs. State ofRajasthan, 2011 1 CriLR 662 , pertaining to the Rajasthan Excise Act, wherein it was clearly held that in special conditions, owing to the facts & circumstances of a case, the minimum sentence can be overlooked by the Hon’ble Court for the purpose of passing an order, substituting the sentence awarded, with the period already undergone by the accused, where the sentence undergone by the accused is less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the relevant statute. 10. In the case of Braham Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 Sc 1789 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, reduced the minimum sentence to the period already undergone while looking to the fact that the incident was took place about more than eight-years back and the appellant has already suffered part of imprisonment. 11. Similarly, in Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B., (1998) 9 SCC 678 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the fact that the appellant was released on bail long back and because of protracted litigation, he has suffered lot of mental agony & taking into account the financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for some time (three weeks), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice. 12. Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208 was a case pertaining to the Arms Act, which also prescribes a minimum sentence, wherein this Hon’ble Court ruled in a similar manner as discussed herein-above. 13. Similarly, in Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.320/2019) decided on 08.05.2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone for the offence under Sections 341 & 323 of I.P.C. & under Sections 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 14. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. 13. Similarly, in Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.320/2019) decided on 08.05.2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone for the offence under Sections 341 & 323 of I.P.C. & under Sections 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 14. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:- “43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said - “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from herein-above, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directly when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by him. 16. Thus, the analogy drawn from the precedent laws discussed herein-above, is that even under special laws wherein a minimum sentence for offences under the provisions of the concerned statutes prescribed, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have taken a consistent approach in reducing the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone even below the minimum sentence prescribed, owing to the special facts & circumstances of each case. 17. 17. This Court, therefore, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the present case, particularly the long pendency of the case and the old date of incident, as well as keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, partly allows the present appeal, while maintaining conviction under Sections 3 (1) (10) of the Act of 1989 and under Section 323 of I.P.C. The sentence, so awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 18. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 19. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.