1 Revn.: 17/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2011 Sanjay Baburao More .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. K.S. Patil, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 22nd February, 2011 P.C. 1. This revision application is preferred to challenge the concurrent decisions of conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. Mr. Patil, makes a statement that the applicant does not wish to challenge his conviction, but seeks only leniency in respect of the sentence awarded to him. The applicant had stolen a mobile phone from the pocket of the complainant, worth Rs.5,500/-. He was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, he was to undergo further imprisonment for 10 days. 2. Mr. Patil, states that the applicant has already deposited the amount of fine and that he has also undergone the sentence of 52 days, 2 Revn.: 17/2011 including the period as an under trial prisoner. The applicant claims that after the incident of theft and the conviction, he has left the city of Mumbai and is now residing at Hatlot, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, District Satara and is engaged in agricultural activities. Mr. Patil has tendered the affidavit of father of the applicant. The affidavit shows that the father of applicant owns 71 acres of ancestral land, bearing gat No.95/2010, survey Nos. 65, 95, 72 at village Hatlot. Out of 71 acres of land, 30 acres of land is under cultivation of paddy and other crops. The learned APP tenders a report from Dadar Railway Police Station confirming that the applicant herein is now residing at village Hatlot and is engaged in agricultural activities. The report also shows that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 3. Considering the above facts and the age of the applicant, I find that this is a fit case where the sentence awarded to the applicant can be modified by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone and increasing the fine amount. Hence, the revision application is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction of the applicant is confirmed. The sentence awarded to the applicant is modified. The substantive sentence awarded is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone and the fine amount is increased to Rs.3,500/-. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)