ORDER : Kuldeep Mathur, J. 1. By way of filing the present criminal revision petition, the petitioners-accused have challenged the order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2004, wherein the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shri Vijaynagar in Criminal Case No. 98/2001 for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act , 1972 was confirmed. 2. The learned trial court vide order of conviction and judgment dated 30.11.2004 was pleased to convict the accused petitioners and sentenced them as under: - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION SENTENCE 9/51 Wildlife Protection Act Two year’s R.I and a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months’ R.I. 3. As, per the prosecution’s case, on 01.01.2001, a team of Police Station Sri Vijaynagar during routine patrolling found one tractor near Gandhi Chowk. Upon searching the said tractor and the trolley attached to it, the police team recovered two dead bodies of Nilgae (Blue bull) concealed under the grass from the trolley. The petitioners and co-accused persons who were present in the tractor trolley were arrested on the spot. 4. On the basis of the said recovery, an FIR bearing registration No.01/2001 came to be registered at Police Station Sri Vijay Nagar against the petitioners and co-accused persons for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act , 1972 and the investigation was commenced. After concluding the investigation, the investigating agency filed chargesheet against the petitioners for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act . Upon completion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2004. The learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 05.08.2008 affirmed the order of conviction dated 30.11.2004. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident related to the year 2001. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no positive evidence available on record indicating guilt of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the sentence so awarded to the petitioners was suspended by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2008 passed in S.B. Cri. Misc. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no positive evidence available on record indicating guilt of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the sentence so awarded to the petitioners was suspended by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2008 passed in S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.283/2008. 7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners in the alternative submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 2001 and the petitioners have already served some part of the sentence awarded to them. The petitioners are facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, the sentence awarded to them may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor 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. However, he was not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is pending since 2008. 9. Heard. 10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 2001 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008. The record of the case indicates that petitioners have already undergone detention for some period and since the case is pending before this Court since 2008, the petitioners have suffered both financial hardships and mental agony. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678 pleased to observe as under: Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) “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.” Haripada Das (supra) “... 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.” Haripada Das (supra) “... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...” 12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have already undergone detention for some period, thus, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them, deserves acceptance. 13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act , the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of accordingly. 15. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.