The court has the discretion to consider the period already undergone in imprisonment and the fine imposed by the trial court to reduce the sentence of the accused.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By judgment and order, dated 26-09-2003, passed, in GR Case No. 41 of 2003, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Majuli, one person, namely, Padma Kanta Sarmah, was convicted under Section 411 IPC, whereas his co-accused, namely, Sri Maina Dutta, (i.e., the appellant herein) was convicted under Section 379 IPC and each one of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, both the convicted persons, namely, Padma Kanta Sarmah and Maina Dutta preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2003. By judgment and order, dated 23-03-2004, learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, partly allowed the appeal in the sense that while the conviction and, consequently, the sentence passed, as against the accused-appellant, namely, Padma Kanta Sarmah, under Section 411 IPC, were set aside, but the present appellant's, namely, Maina Dutta's, conviction under Section 379 IPC and the sentence passed against him were upheld and the present appellant's appeal stood accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant is, now, before this Court seeking to get set aside, with the help of this revision, his conviction and the sentence passed against him.

2. I have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. While considering the present revision, it needs to be pointed out that on taking up the appeal, for hearing, it has been submitted, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, that the case against the accused-petitioner originated in the month of April, 2003, and, hence, a period of more than 9 years have already elapsed and while the evidence on record is sufficient to warrant his conviction under Section 379 IPC, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment, which he has already undergone in the sense that he was arrested on 20-04-2003 and released, on bail, on 30-04-2003.

4. Apart from the fact that State does not raise any objection to the reduction of the sentence, as sought for on behalf of the accused-petitioner, the accused petitioner stands convicted, under Section 379 IPC, for having stolen a tube well's iron pipe.

5. In the circumstances indicated above, this Court is also of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be served if the period, already undergone, in imprisonment, by the accused- petitioner is treated to be the period of his sentence coupled with the fine of Rs.500/-, which has been imposed by the learned trial Court.

6. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, while the conviction of the accused-petitioner, under Section 379 IPC, is maintained, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, as mentioned above, coupled with fine of Rs.500/- as has been imposed by the learned trial Court.

7. With the above modification in the sentence, which was passed against the accused-petitioner, this revision is disposed of with direction to the accused-petitioner to pay, within a period on one month from today, the fine of Rs.500/- and, in default thereof, he shall, in terms of the directions given by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.