ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant criminal revision petition is barred by limitation from 409 days. An application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT has been preferred seeking condonation of delay. For the grounds and reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The same be treated to be filed within limitation.

2. An application has been filed seeking correction in the order dated 28.07.2023, wherein indavertently name of the trial court has been mentioned as "Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara" instead of "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara". The correction sought for is essential, therefore, it is ordered that the name of the trial court mentioned in para 4 of the order dated 28.07.2023 shall be read as "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara" instead of "Judicial Magistrate, District Banswara".

3. Looking to the nature of offence and other facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision petition itself is being heard and decided today itself.

4. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 /401 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.64/2016, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Original Case No.440/2014, whereby he was convicted for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and for each count, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 days.

5. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 02.08.2014, complainant Anil S/o Ramesh Chandra Joshi submitted a report at the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara to the effect that on that day at 09.00 a.m. he went alongwith Superintending Engineer to inspect a site. When he returned back at 11.30 a.m., he opened the lock of the main gate of the house and found that the same was locked from inside. The main gate was got opened in the presence of Mr. Shyam Lal Gurjar, SI and it was noticed that the household articles had been threshed about and cash, ornaments and other articles had been stolen. On the aforesaid report, FIR No.375/2014 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC.

6. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced from defence side. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.08.2016. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 08.09.2021 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

7. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner su