The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners while maintaining the amount of fine, considering the time spent in incarceration and the protracted trial.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. By this revision, the petitioner-convicts are challenging the judgment and order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur Camp Mawli, District Udaipur whereby, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mawli, District Udaipur, as under:

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that the complainant Rajaq submitted a written report before the Police station stating therein that he and his family members had gone to their uncle’s house. When they came back in the morning, they found that some unknown persons had broke open locks of two rooms and stole jewellery, cash, electronic items etc.

3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No. 109/2007 was registered by the police for offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC and the police started investigation. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the petitioners for offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and got exhibited various documents. After examining the accused petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. opportunity was also given to them to lead defence evidence. However, no witness was examined on the defence side.

5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 11.01.2013 convicted and sentenced the petitioners for offence under Section 457, 380 IPC as mentioned above.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawli, District Udaipur, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Camp Mawli, District Udaipur, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners-convict was upheld.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners makes a submission that the incident relates back to year 2007 and the petitioners has suffered incarceration of about two months period, therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below may be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners by the Court below be maintained by this Court.

9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the entire record.

10. From the findings recorded by the trial Court, I am satisfied that learned counsel for the accused-petitioners is right in not pressing this revision petition on merits. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is concerned, it is not disputed that all the petitioners have remained behind the bars for about two months and h