1 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.72/1995 Rewat Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 26th March 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. V.N.Kalla, for the petitioners. Mr. O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor .... BY THE COURT: This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.02.1995, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No. 6/1994 whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners and affirmed the judgment and order dated 24.03.1994, as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No. 378/1989, convicting the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentencing each of them to simple imprisonment for 1 year. The accused-petitioners were tried for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC when the charge-sheet was filed after investigation on the FIR lodged by Gordhan Singh (PW-1) on 03.07.1989 with the allegations that he found the locks of his shop broken and various bundles of cloths missing. During the course of investigation, the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the present petitioners. After framing of the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced the relevant documentary evidence. 2 The petitioners, in the plea recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence; but did not adduce any evidence. The learned Magistrate though found that the charges relating to the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC were not substantiated, but found the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of the articles from the petitioners duly established; and, for the reason that the petitioners were found in possession of the property belonging to the complainant that had been stolen from the shop, held them guilty of the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. The learned Appellate Judge noticed the reasoning and the findings of the learned Magistrate, found no case for interference, and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners- appellants in this case that the petitioners have been convicted only on the basis of uncertain evidence of recovery of the alleged articles but then, the articles in question were not identified before any Magistrate and even the articles were not produced before the Court and the learned subordinate Courts have acted wholly illegally in taking the case of recovery proved against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the accused-petitioners have faced this case for last about 21 years and have remained in custody for about 3 weeks; and no useful purpose would be served in sending them to imprisonment at this length of time. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the orders impugned. 3 Having heard the learned counsel and having examined the record, so far the conviction of the petitioners is concerned, this Court finds no ground for interference particularly when the learned Magistrate has returned the findings against the petitioners after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and the findings have been affirmed by the Appellate Court again after proper examination of the record of the case. So far the aspect of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the accusation relates to the incident of the year 1989; and petitioners have faced this case for about 21 years and have remained in custody for about 22 days. Nothing else has been placed before the Court to justify further imprisonment of the petitioners in relation to this case at this length of time. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to that of the period already undergone. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed; while the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 411 IPC is maintained, the sentence awarded to each of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioners are on bail and need not surrender. The bail bonds stand cancelled. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni