SHIVJI SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.RC., the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2004, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 268 of 2003, whereby the Trial Court convicted accused-petitioner for the offences under Secs. 457 and 380 Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 457 IPC; and one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 380 Penal Code with a direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the judgments and orders convicting the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 457 and 380 Penal Code and confines his challenge only to the question of quantum of sentence awarded by the Courts below. There is concurrent findings of both the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under Secs. 457 and 380 IPC. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offences, learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough in giving up his challenge to the impugned judgments and orders so far the same relate to the question of conviction.

(3.) The petitioner is facing protracted trial, appeal and revision. There is nothing on showing adverse antecedents of the petitioner. He has already undergone the imprisonment for more than seven months and incurred expenses in contesting the matters. In this view of the matter, the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The sentence of fine is maintained.