A court can modify a sentence to time already served when the defendant has considerably served their sentence and considers the defendant's past offenses.

ORDER

The revision petitioner was prosecuted before the learned District Munsif-

cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, for the offences under Sections 457 r/w 34 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The Trial Court, by order dated 30.10.2023, imposed punishment for the offence under Section 457 r/w 34 IPC to undergo three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 380 r/w 34 IPC to undergo three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The Trial Court directed the sentences to run consecutively.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.33 of 2025 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence by directing the imprisonment to run concurrently. Not satisfied with the said judgment, the present revision has been filed.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, marked 34 documents as Exs.P1 to P34, and produced two Material Objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5. The Trial Court, after elaborately analysing the oral and documentary evidence, ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt, which finding was on re-

appreciation of evidence confirmed by the Appellate Court.

6. When the revision was taken up, even before commencement of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that, having regard to the evidence on record and the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, he would not challenge the finding of guilt and would only seek modification of the sentence.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has so far undergone 958 days of imprisonment as on 13.03.2026, in which he has been in custody as a convict from 30.10.2023 to 13.03.2026 (866 days), and during the remand period he was in custody for 92 days. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than 2 years and 6 months in prison and prayed that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. Though the petitioner has been in prison for about 2 years and 6 months, the past history of the petitioner, which has been rightly extracted in the judgment, reveals that the petitioner has seven previous cases of similar nature, out of which six cases were registered during 2022 and one case in 2023, which clearly demonstrates that he is a repeat offender.

9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has already substantially undergone the sentence, the punishment may be reduced to the period already undergone. To substantiate the period of incarceration, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also produced the incarceration certificate issued by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

10. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and the fair submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while confirming the conviction, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent of sentence, and the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Since the sentence has been reduced, the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any other case. Consequently, the connec