The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence of the recovery of stolen articles and the petitioner's previous conviction, and dismissed the request for reduction of imprisonment due to the petitioner being a habitual offender.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This is revision petition received through jail against the Judgment and order dated 30.03.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur ( for short the appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jodhpur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 1069/2004 was dismissed. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 379/75, IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment and the appellate Court affirmed the Judgment and order of the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Perused the Judgment and order of the appellate Court as well as of the trial Court. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 26.04.2004 PW-2 Nauratanmal Mehta lodged report Ex. P/14 inter alia alleging therein that on 25.04.2004 at about

5.15 p.m. his brother Navalchand was travelling in train Holiday Express from Ajmer to Surat. When his brother reached Abu Road, he informed that his bag has been stollen by the unknown person. The matter was investigated and the petitioner was arrested vide Ex.P-1 on 28.04.2004. The bag containing Cash, one Tape Recorder with C.D. Player, certain cassettes etc., were recovered from the petitioner. Apart from other articles, a sum of Rs. 14,420/-out of Rs. 30,000/-alleged to have been stolen, was also recovered. After investigation, it was found that the petitioner is previously convicted and, therefore, challan was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379/75, IPC. A visiting card, railway ticket, the bill of tape recorder were also recovered from the petitioner. The articles recovered from the petitioner were identified by the Navalchand Mehta brother of the complainant. The prosecution produced as many as 11 witnesses before the trial Court and certain documents Exhibits-P/1 to P/18 including the purchase bill of tape recorder. The accused made statement under Section 313, CrPC, and the incriminating put to him in his statement has been answered it is not known. The petitioner has not made claim to the articles seized from him.

4. The trial Court on finding that the petitioner is previously convicted person convicted him for the offence under Section 379/75, IPC and sentenced him as noticed above. On appeal, the appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the fining recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and does not suffer from any error or illegality.

5. I have carefully gone through the statement of prosecution witnesses. Recovery of stolen articles from the petitioner has been fully proved by the prosecution evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment of one year, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to that of the period already undergone by the accused. From the record it appears that the petitioner is habitual offender and was previously convicted and repeated the offence. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate warranting interference.

7. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. The application for suspension of sentence also stands dismissed.