JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.21/2011 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.306/2011 (Old case No.03/99) by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 279 IPC 6 months’ SI - - Section 337 IPC 6 months’ SI - - Section 338 IPC 1 year S.I. - - Section 304-A IPC 2 years’ S.I. - - 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 19.11.1998, complainant – Rajendra Singh submitted a report at Police Station Fuliya Kalan to the extent that he is a sugar dealer and on 19.11.1998, at about 4 PM he was carrying sugar & salt bags in a truck bearing registration No.RJ01-G-3845, 709. The truck was being driven by the present petitioner Goru Lal and the complainant along with Gokal & Kalyan was sitting in the front cabin of truck and some other persons viz., Gopi, Bhura, Chhitar, Ramchandra, Ramkaran, Heera, Ramswaroop, Sohan, Ranjeet, etc. were sitting on the bags kept at the back side of truck. When they reached near Doi ka Khera the truck overturned, due to which all the persons got injured and during treatment, Surajkaran and Ramswaroop died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner Goru Lal. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned. 4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. 4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 02.11.2011 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.05.2014. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Devam Maheshwari, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1998. He had remained in jail for about nine days after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 45 years old at the time of incident, now he is aged about 69 years and is facing trial since the year 1998 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence. 6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about nine days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him. 7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. 7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 26 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of two years as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.05.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.21/2011 & judgment dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.306/2011 (Old case No.03/99) is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. 10. The revision petition is allowed in part. 11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.