SAMPAT CHIMAJI DIGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under section 380 of the I.P.C. on his own admission and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 20 days. The petitioner filed a revision application in the Court of the Sessions, Greater Bombay, but it was summarily rejected. Hence this application.

(2.) We issued rule and the Public Prosecutor accepted notice. The matter was immediately heard on merits. The Counsel for the petitioner says that the accused is aged only about 22. The theft he committed was in the house of his own maternal uncle. Not only he candidly admitted the guilt, but out of Rs. 1500/- that were stolen Rs. 1400/- have been returned to the maternal uncle. The petitioner had been in jail for about 22 days. In the circumstances, the Counsel prays that the substantive sentence be reduced to that which is already undergone. He further says that the petitioner will pay the fine of Rs. 100/- but he should be given time of 8 days.

(3.) This is a case where the applicability of section 360 Cri.P.C. could have been considered by the learned trial Magistrate. However, this is not done in this case. Since the only prayer now made before us is to reduce the substantive sentence to which the accused has already undergone, we think that looking to the age of the accused and the circumstances of the case that prayer should be accepted. We thus allow this revision application and reduce the substantive sentence to which it has already been undergone by the accused.