IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to consider the occurrence, the age of the accused, and the time spent in incarceration when deciding on the reduction of the sentence for an offence.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.03.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2003 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 02.08.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Regular Case No. 1278/1993, whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years’ R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo four months’ R.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.1987, complainant Bhanwarlal submitted an oral report before Police Station Chittorgarh to the effect that on 28.04.1987 he purchased silver ornaments (Kadia) in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- from a jewellery shop situated near Sabji Mandi, Chittorgarh. On examination, the said silver ornaments (Kadia) were found fake as the same were made up of white copper and not of silver. On this report, the police registered the case against accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 420 IPC was framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness Sambha Ji Rav Maratha was examined as DW-1.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 02.08.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.

6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.03.2003. Hence this revision petition.

7. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1987 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about forty-five days, out of total sentence of two years’ R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

10. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1987 and the accused-petitioner is aged about 55 years and he has so far undergone a period of about forty-five days incarceration, out of total sentence of two years’ R.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 420 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

11. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction and sentence for offence under Sectio