Order : 1. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2017 passed by Nayayadhikari, Gram Nayayalaya, Kudli, Sikar in Criminal Case No.159/2005 BT No. 72/2007 whereby the trial Court accused-petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/S 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC. For offence u/S 279 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. For offence u/S 337 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. For offence u/S 338 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo one years’ simple imprisonment and for offence u/S 304-A IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 23.08.2017 by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing (CIS No.) 153/2017 before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Sikar whereby the learned Court vide order dated 07.07.2018 had dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the court below. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by the Court vide its order dated 25.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 2005 and this petition has been pending since year 2018. Counsel makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. 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) This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of 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 directed 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. 6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan; SLP(Crl.) No. 6152/2024 and Chander Shekhar Vs. State of Rajasthan; Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024 and Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Vinod Kumar (Supra) “Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1990 and that the appellant had also, being the driver of the vehicle, substantially suffered injuries, we feel that the sentence awarded be reduced to the sentence already undergone, subject to the condition that the fine amount be increased to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) out of which Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) be paid to the legal heirs of each of the three deceased.” Chander Shekhar (Supra) “In such circumstances referred to above, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences enumerated above, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. We have granted this indulgence keeping in mind that almost 27 years have elapsed since the time the accident occurred.” Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. We have granted this indulgence keeping in mind that almost 27 years have elapsed since the time the accident occurred.” 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) “...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...” 7. This High Court in the case of Jiyaram Devasi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. criminal writ petition No.400 of 1998, decided on 15.07.2019, (2019(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1415) , has observed as under: “11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused- petitioners have so far undergone a period of one month and eleven days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 326 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while increasing the amount of fine. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.200/- imposed for offence u/S 341 IPC and Rs.500/- imposed for offence u/S 323 IPC is hereby maintained, however the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed for offence u/S 326 IPC is increased to Rs.2,000/-, in total each of the accused-petitioners is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- as fine. Two month’s time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.” 8. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 2005 and this petition has been pending since year 2018. 9. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the accused petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal writ petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/S 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is not in judicial custody, thus, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 11. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial Court.