The court emphasized that sentences imposed on guilty pleas should consider reformative justice, prioritizing leniency unless serious prior conduct is evidenced.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Revision Petition No.357 of 2017 is filed by accused No.1, Criminal Revision Petition No.631 of 2017 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 4, and Criminal Revision Petition No.822 of 2018 is filed by accused No.3 to set aside the judgment and order dated 1-2-2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015 and to confirm the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alur, Hassan, in Criminal Case No.521 of 2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 3, respectively and the respondent is the complainant-State before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Accused Nos.1 to 4 joined together to commit house breaking of PW1. On 12-11-2013 at about 01.30 to 02.00 p.m., they broke open the back door of the first informant's house and they illegally trespassed into his house and committed the offence of theft by stealing gold ornaments and cash, which led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

4. The Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ').

5. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences against accused Nos.1 to 4 and framed charges for the alleged offences, for which, they pleaded guilty. The trial Court recorded the conviction on pleading guilty and acting under Section 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months for both the offences and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. Questioning the inadequacy of the sentence being passed by the trial Court, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the criminal appeal and sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 454 of the with default sentences. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner(s)/accused Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court while appreciating the law erroneously held that accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed an application for plea bargaining. However, no such application had been filed by them before the trial Court and they have pleaded guilty in order to reform themselves and accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to convict them under Section 241 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner(s) filed these revision petitions.

8. The "scope of revision" refers to the limited authority of a higher Court to review judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, focusing on correcting errors in jurisdiction or gross legal/factual flaws rather than re- examining the merits of the case. This power is exercised sparingly and is intended to set right a patent defect, not to function as an automatic second appeal. The specific grounds and limitations vary between civil and criminal proceedings. Revisions can address situations where the decision is grossly inaccurate, not supported by evidence, or where relevant evidence was ignored. The review is no