JUDGEMENT

1/The petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Criminal Appeal No.62/2013, whereby the judgment dated 7.3.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Neemuch in Criminal Case No.1207/2008 has been upheld, by which the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo 1 year’s Simple Imprisonment.

2/Brief facts of the case are that on 10.6.2008 complainant Manish lodged a report before the police station Neemuch Cantt that in T.I.T. Colony, Neemuch in front of his house at about 10.00 p.m. one TVS Moped bearing registration No. MP44-A-3635 was standing and complainant was sleeping in his house. On the next day, the said Moped was missing and some unknown person committed theft of the Moped.

Thereafter police registered the Crime No.318/08 under Section 379 of IPC against the unknown person. Later on stolen vehicle has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

3/After framing the charges and recording the evidence, trial Court has convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced him, as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.62/2013 before the Sessions Court, the same was rejected vide judgment dated 13.11.2013 by upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4/The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. His sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone, as the petitioner has already suffered more than two months imprisonment and he is facing trial since 2008. During the trial as well as during pendency of the criminal appeal and this revision, he has cooperated. It is further contended that the petitioner is a poor person. He has no criminal past.

Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5/Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the criminal revision and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

6/Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and considered their arguments.

7/In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court.

8/So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. The petitioner has remained in jail from 19.6.2008 to

25.7.2008, from 14.2.2013 to 26.3.2013 and 13.11.2013 to 3.2.2014. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

9/Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. His bail and surety bonds stand discharged.

10/The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the trial Court, is also affirmed.

11/Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court as well as record of the first appellate court, to the concerned trial Court for its necessary compliance.

C.C. as per rules. (ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-