1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2003.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in Criminal Appeal No.04/2001, whereby, the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the accused- petitioner has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran in Criminal Case No.183/1998, whereby, the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Section 409 IPC :

Five years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 07.07.2004 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence/Bail Application No.73/2003.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 1 year, 7 months and 23 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 [LQ/SC/2012/43] and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, [LQ/SC/1998/294] wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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)

“…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. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.