VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this revision petition filed under Sec. 397/401, Crimial P.C., the petitioner accused is challenging judgment dated 23.10.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 50/1996, by which, the appellate Court affirmed the judgment dated 16.10.1995 passed by Judl. Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 258/1993, whereby, learned trial Court punished the petitioner (herein) by way of passing sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for commission of offence under Sec. 304-A, I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 500.00, in default, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, while granting benefit of probation for the offence under Sec. 279, I.P.C.

(2.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging finding of both the Courts below but, it is prayed that petitioner is facing trial since 1993 for the incident which occurred on 12.1.1988. In the meantime, the petitioner also remained in custody for some days, therefore, it is prayed that after lapse of this much of time it would not be proper to send the petitioner to custody for the incident which occurred on 12.1.1988 and, accordingly, the substantive sentence of the petitioner for offence under Sec. 304-A, I.P.C. awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from 6 months' simple imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already served out by him and he may be ordered to be released.

(3.) In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of this Court, reported in 2002 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1655, Goda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan , in which, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that incident is of the year 1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, therefore, ends of justice would meet if for offence under Sec. 4/9 of the Opium Act (in that case) the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.