The court has the discretion to consider the circumstances of the accused and may reduce the sentence based on the family situation and time served.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal jail revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in criminal case no. 536 of 2015, State vs. Sunder Lal, whereby the trial court has convicted the revisionists under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 409 IPC and one month simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine; three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 420 IPC and one month additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine; three years rigorous imprisonment under section 467 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and one month additional simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine; three years rigorous imprisonment under section 468 IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and one month additional simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 471 IPC and one month additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine as well as the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2016, Sunder Lal Vs. State whereby the learned Appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court. . All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts, in brief, are that a chik FIR (Ex. A1) was lodged with Revenue Circle, Ghimtoli, Rudraprayag under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the revisionist. After investigation, charge sheet (Ex. A4) was submitted. Accordingly, the concerned CJM took the cognizance and after compliance of the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed on 03.11.2015. The revisionist denied the allegation and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Surendra Lal, PW2 Ganga Singh Rana, PW3 Sunder Lal, PW4 Dilwar Singh, PW5 Vinita Devi, PW6 Shakambari Devi, PW7 Sunita Devi, PW8 Sobti Devi, PW9 Bhanuprakash and PW 10 Shafiq Ahmed.

4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the revisionist was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that the prosecution has produced false evidence against him. However, no evidence in defence was adduced.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has convicted the revisionists vide order dated 19.03.2016 and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred appeal no. 16 of 2016, Sunder Lal Vs. State. The appellate court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Feeling aggrieved by both the decisions, the present revision has been preferred.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State through video conferencing.

7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court has rightly convicted the revisionist based on evidence. There is no illegality in the impugned findings regarding conviction. He fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2015, and the appellant has no criminal history. The revisionist is the only bread earner of his family. The trial court has convicted the appellant in abovementioned offences and sentenced him three years rigorous imprisonment against which he already served more than two years in jail. He further submitted that the Court, while upholding the revisionist's conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionist and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

8. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that as per the jail record the revisionist has already served one year seven months without remission and looking to the gravity of the offence, two year and five months imprisonment is sufficient.

9. I hav