The court has the discretion to consider the accused's personal circumstances and the nature of the offense in determining the appropriate sentence.

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 30.11.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. (II), Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. in P.C. No. 27/2 of 2002, titled as State of H.P. vs. Raj Kumar, as modified by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla Camp at Rohru vide judgment dated 17.4.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7-R/10 of 2004/02, titled as Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P., the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. IT is the case of the prosecution that on 7.5.2002 complainant Sh. Mohinder Singh Rana lodged a complaint to the effect that certain stores from the H.R.T.C. workshop have been stolen. On the basis of the statement (Ext. PW 5/A) of the complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., F.I.R. No. 66 of 2002 (Ext. PW 5/B) dated 7.5.2002 was registered against the present petitioner Raj Kumar at Police Station Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P. under the provisions of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was investigated by the police. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

3. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded.

4. APPRECIATING the material placed on record by the prosecution, trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- for having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal. The lower appellate Court while upholding the judgment of conviction, reduced the sentence from six months to one month. Hence the present appeal.

5. AFTER having heard the matter for some time, Mr. V. S. Rathour, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly, under instructions from the petitioner who is present in the Court, does not challenge the findings and judgment of conviction. However, with regard to the quantum of sentence learned counsel for the petitioner requests that keeping in view the fact that the offence took place in the year 2002; petitioner has suffered the trial for so long; petitioner is married and has family to support including two minor children and more so for the reason that he has lost his job as he stands terminated; he is an agriculturist and not having much income; it is his first offence and maintained good conduct all throughout; he has also recently lost his father and there is no other male member left to look after the family, a lenient view be taken and sentence of imprisonment be reduced from one month till the rising of the Court. On visible appearance also, petitioner appears to be poor.

6. AS already noticed, accused-petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for the charged offences, after he was given adequate opportunity of leading his defence.

Taking into consideration the overall attending circumstances and a holistic view thereof, I am of the considered view that interference to this extent is warranted and interest of justice would be met if at this stage the quantum of sentence is reduced and modified. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month so imposed by the lower appellate Court is reduced to, till the rising of the Court. Ordered accordingly.

7. DECISION to reduce the sentence, in my considered view, is in the interest of justice, parties and is expedient, considering the given facts and circumstances. With the aforesaid observations, present revision petition