1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition no. 88/1994 {Ganesh Versus The State of Rajasthan} Date of Order :: 7th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri R.K. Charan, counsel for the petitioner Shri O.P. Singhaniya, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner does not press the revision petition on merits in view of concurrent finding of fact about commission of offence recorded by both the courts below, but prays that incident relates to the year 1980 and petitioner had already remained in jail for more than five months, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. 3. The learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence of imprisonment in view of the fact that order of conviction is not being challenged by him. 4. I have considered the submissions of 2 learned counsel for the parties in the light of findings recorded by both the courts below. The allegation against the petitioner was that he snatched a nose pin of one Mst. Pyari worth Rs. 1500/-, whereby she sustained a simple injury. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan for the offence under Section 394 IPC. The trial court framed charge for the above offence and after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 394 IPC to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The said order of conviction was upheld by the appellate court, but sentence of imprisonment was reduced to a period of two years six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months' additional imprisonment. 5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not pressed the revision petition as there is concurrent finding of fact about commission of offence by both the courts below. I have also examined the finding of both the courts below and I am satisfied that order 3 of conviction passed against the petitioner by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is fully justified and no interference in the said finding is called for by this Court. 6. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner remained in custody for about 4 months and 8 days from 14th May, 1980 to 22nd September, 1980 during investigation / trial of the case; he further remained for 8 days after his conviction by the trial court and grant of bail by the appellate court and again for a period of one month and one day after rejection of his appeal by the appellate court and grant of bail by this Court. Thus, almost he has remained in jail for about 6 months. 7. Admittedly, the incident took place on 14th May, 1980. Thus it is more than 29 years' old case. Even this revision petition is 15 years old. The petitioner faced trial from 1980 to 1983. The learned counsel for the State has also not opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence of imprisonment seriously. 8. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation 4 against the petitioner, the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him and that it is 29 years old case, I find that ends of justice will meet in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the petitioner is reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. The order regarding find is upheld. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of accused petitioner is upheld, but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not to surrender. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. //DK//-