S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) This revision is on the question of sentence against the judgment dated 11.1.1979. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by which the conviction and sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under section 304-A I. P. C awarded by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, has been maintained.
(2.) The only point argued before me was with respect to the quantum of the sentence. It was argued that accused-petitioner has a large family to support and he is the only source of support of the family. The incident occurred in the year 1970 and, therefore, now after a lapse of almost nine years it would be unjust and inequitable to send the accused back to jail to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The argument was substantiated by the following authorities:-
(3.) Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi (A. I. R. 1973 Supreme Court 2127) : "The more difficult question seems to be one of sentence in the present case. The accident took place on April 20, 1965, the trial Court convicted the appellant on April 30, 1966 sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to a fine of Rs. 500/-. His appeal was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge on September 7, 1966 and his revision was disallowed on September 11, 1979. He was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on February 2, 1970. We are now in May 1973. The Criminal proceedings against the appellant have thus gone on since April, 1965 which means a little more than 8 years. The circumstances in which the collision between the truck and the appellants scooter occurred seems prima facie to suggest that they (their drivers) were both to blame. Penalties designed to deter crime should be gauged so far as possible to the degree of social danger that is represented by the crime and its repetition. To send the appellant back to Jail to serve the sentence of 6 months after 8 years seems to us to be highly unjust for the kind of offence which has been upheld against him by the three courts below. It is unlikely to have any reformatory effect on him. Harassment of a criminal trial for more than 8 years and the expense which he must have incurred, in our opinion, can legitimately be taken into account when considering the question of sentence to be imposed by this court at this point of time. The appellant is stated to have served out only three weeks of imprisonment but on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the case we think it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but to increase the sentence of fine from Rupees 500/- to Rs. 700/-".;