non traceability of the records, want of prosecution for Accused’s sentence and the resultant prejudice to the constitutional right of the Accused, he prays that the matter be permanently stayed.” (my emphasis) [12] Therefore, for the same reasons as quoted above, it is my view that the prejudice that the accused might have suffered or stands to as a result of the delay in the prosecution of his sentence is far outweighed by the other factors of this case which include but are not limited to, the seriousness of the offence, the age of the minor child, the interests of society, and the fact that the prescribed sentence far exceeds the time he has already spend in prison before sentence. At any rate, the sentence he will get can be computed in such a manner that the said period is taken away from the period he is yet to serve. Thus, this ground also falls off. [13] Coming to the issue of the sentence itself, it is salutary to refer to the remarks of the Court in the case of S v Rubie 8 which properly reflect what is now established law. Therein, the Court stated thus:“Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, be fair to society and be blended with a measure of mercy according to particular circumstances.” 8 1975 (4) SA 855 at 862