1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 223/1994 Amraram Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order :: 12.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.N. Mohanani, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor. ... To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 13.6.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra affirming conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC as made by the Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred. The trial court by its judgment dated 8.12.1992, after convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year with a fine of Rs.100/- and to further undergo additional imprisonment for a period of fifteen days in the event of default in payment of fine. The appellate court though affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing imprisonment from one year to six months and by enhancing fine from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/-. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that no offence as per provision of Section 457 IPC is made out against the petitioner as a factum of commission of any other offence is lacking in the present case. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced and the issue sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has been considered by the appellate court and on the basis of available evidence, a definite finding is given regarding availability of necessary ingredients under section 457 IPC. The another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding sentence. It is urged that the offence alleged was committed in the intervening night of 6th and 7th January, 1991 i.e. about 19 years back and as such, now at this stage it shall not be appropriate to remit the accused to undergo remaining term of sentence. I have considered the argument advanced and looking to all available facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a term of about 39 days, I find it appropriate to modify sentence given to the petitioner by reducing the same to the term already undergone instead of term of six months and further by enhancing the fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/-. 3 Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of. The conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC is affirmed. However, sentence awarded by the appellate court i.e. six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and to further undergo one month's additional imprisonment in the event of default in making payment of fine is modified by the sentence of imprisonment already undergone with a fine of Rs.1500/-, which is required to be deposited with the trial court within a period of two months from today. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. rm/-