- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Shri Narayan against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2000 passed in criminal case No. 160/1983 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur by which he was convicted under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R1 and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment and against the order dated 11.12.2000 of Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Cases, Sawai 11.12.2000 of Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in criminal appeal No. 106/2000 by which he dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30.8.2000. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, appearing for the accused petitioner is not challenging the conviction: of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 408 IPC but he has only requested to this court that his sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by him on the following grounds: "(a) The accused petitioner is facing trial, appeal and revision period from the date of occurrence which took place on 6.5.1982 which is about 31 years from today. (b) The accused petitioner is not a habitual offender and it is his first offence. (c) The accused petitioner has remained in judicial custody for 70 days."
(2.) The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has placed reliance on Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1986 CrLJ 2061. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1986 CrLJ 2061observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, same 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed."
(3.) He has further placed reliance on Gulab Das and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 10 SCC 765. He has further placed reliance on Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2011 AIR(SC) 1821. The appeal court in Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari in para 16 observed as under: 16. We must immediately state that the offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in the present case is out of question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on May 17, 1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants, surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine.";