1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Jagmohan Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.270/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 11th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Jitendra Pandey for the petitioner. Mrs. Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.32/2007 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 4.4.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hindaun City, Karauli convicting the accused petitioner under section 380 IPC and sentencing to two years simple imprisonment and with of Rs.1,000/-, in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment has been upheld. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused-petitioner is in jail since 18 months and he has been convicted and sentenced under section 380 IPC for two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default 2 thereof to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment. It is contended that since the accused petitioner has already undergone 18 months imprisonment, the sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone by him. On the other hand, it has been contended that the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2007 convicted the accused under Section 380 IPC and sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment and also with fine and the appeal preferred has also been dismissed on 6.9.2007. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is concurrent finding of fact and the same requires not to be disturbed unless it is found that the same is perverse in nature. It is contended that the accused himself has admitted in his statement before the court that he has been convicted on previous occasions in such type of cases. The learned trial court as well as learned appellate court both have found that the prosecution was able to prove the charge of theft against the accused petitioner. It has also been found that the accused was involved in many theft matters and in one case he has already been convicted and some cases are still pending. It is contended that in the above circumstances, no leniency is required to be given to the accused. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is to be seen that on a report Ex.P-5 lodged by complainant Alok Rawat at police station Hindaun City to the effect that his motor-cycle bearing no.RJ 34 M 9039 was stolen from his 3 house. The police registered a case and after investigation filed charge-sheet in the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused under section 380 IPC. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and tendered some documents in evidence. In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he wants to produce himself as witness in his defence. His statement was recorded as DW-1. Learned trial court on the basis of the evidence found that the case was proved. Learned trial court further found that even in the statement of DW-1, it has come that he was facing trial in some other cases of similar type. The motor cycle and other articles were recovered at the instance of the accused. In such circumstances, the learned trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him. In the appeal the findings of the learned trial court were confirmed. In the above circumstances, the point for consideration is as to whether the learned trial court have rightly convicted the accused under section 380 IPC and the learned appellate court has rightly upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence in detail as both the learned courts below have found concurrently that the accused was responsible for committing theft as the recoveries in the cases were made on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused. It has also come in the statement of the accused that he was involved in similar type of cases. A list was also filed before 4 the learned trial court though that has not been exhibited. Be that as it may, in view of antecedents of the accused and in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, the alleged offence committed by the accused under section 380 IPC has been sufficiently proved. There does not appear any reason to take a lenient view. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM