The court has the discretion to consider the circumstances of the case, including the age of the incident, the family situation of the accused, and the absence of previous convictions, in deciding on the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - Since the revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (CRMA No.3440/2020) has been moved. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Admit.

4. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1642 of 2013, "State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kallu Ram and another whereby the learned trial Court convicted the revisionists u/s 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation, as well as judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal appeal no.228 of 2014, "Kallu Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand" and criminal appeal no.229 of 2014,"Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttarakhand whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed judgment and order dated 15.07.20214 passed by the trial Court.

5. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 26.07.2008 with police station Pant Nagar U/s 379 IPC regarding missing of the motorcycle of the informant. On 16.09.2008 two motorcycles were recovered from the possession of the revisionists. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. After compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed under Sections 379, 411 IPC. The revisionists denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Rajbahadur Sah, PW2 Contable Kailash Kumar, PW3 S.I. Manoj Raturi and PW4 Contable Mahendra Giri.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against them. In defence, no evidence was produced.

8. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionists, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved by it, the revisionists preferred separate criminal appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, which were transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

9. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court came to this conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeals and affirmed the trial Court's order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

11. Learned Counsel for the revisionists fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court rightly convicted the revisionists based on evidence. He fairly submitted that there is no information regarding previous conviction; both the revisionists have already served more than one year in jail; they are the only bread earners of their families; as per the evidence two motorcycles were recovered from their possession; both the revisionists have been acquitted U/s 379 IPC; he also submitted that, this Court, while upholding revisionists' conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionists and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

12. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there is no information regarding the previous conviction of the revisionists.

13. I have also gone through the entire evidence on record produced by the prosecution and came to this conclusion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the revisionists based on sufficie