JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “ Cr.P.C ) against the impugned judgment dated 18.9.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 371/2013 by which the judgment dated 17.8.2013 passed by CJM, Shajapur in Criiminal Case no. 883/2013 has been confirmed, by which the petitioner had been convicted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short”the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Deepak Rathore was the manager of the hotel Maharaja situated and owned by Vaibhav Dubey. On 28.4.2013 in the morning, Vaibhav Dubey called Deepak Rathore in his home and informed that four iron cages were kept out of his house in the night and the same were not found there in the morning. Threafter, the complainant lodged FIR at police station – Shajapur. During investigation, stolen cages were recovered from the possession of present petitioner / accused. Accordingly, the aforementioned offence was registered against him.

3. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner before the C.J.M. Shajapur, who framed the charges under section 379 of IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 379 of IPC and sentenced two years R.I with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Judge, Shajapur, who maintained the conviction and the sentence regarding the petitioner under section 379 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred present revision before this Court.

4. Present petitioner has preferred the instant revision on several grounds, but during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press this revision on merit. He has not assailed the finding part of the judgment and confined his argument to the quantum point of the sentence. His only prayer is that sentence/imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone as the petitioner has already suffered jail incarceration from 1.5.2013 to 8.8.2013 and thereafter from 18.9.2013 to 9.12.2013 during trial as well as pendency of this revision. He has regularly attended the Court. He is facing criminal proceeding for last ten years. He is 35 years old person. He has no criminal past, therefore, it is prayed that his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Per-contra, learned GA for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner, therefore, there is no scope of any interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, as also considered their arguments.

8. In view of the submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by the both the Courts below.

9. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. The petitioner has already suffered jail incarceration from 1.5.2013 to 8.8.2013 and thereafter from 18.9.2013 to 9.12.2013 i.e. for more than six months during trial as well as pendency of this revision The petitioner is facing criminal proceeding for last ten years. and the petitioner is aged about 35 years and he has no criminal background, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce his jail sentence to the period already undergone.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid, present revision is partly allo