1 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.646/2008 Nakshtra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 24-07-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. Rakesh Matoria, for the petitioner. Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar dated 24.6.2008 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated 4.3.2004 whereby he was convicted under section 380 IPC and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Charge against the accused petitioner was that on 8.3.2000 at 12.45 a.m., in the night, he committed theft of motor cycle Enfield No.HNN-2355 from chowki of complainant Balram who lodged the FIR in the morning at 7.00 a.m. at police station, Raisinghnagar. Police registered the case and commenced investigation. During investigation, police recovered Motor Cycle on the basis of the information Ex.P/7 given by the accused petitioner. After investigation, challan was filed against Nakshtra Singh and Sukhchen Singh. Prosecution examined five witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded. No defence was led. After 2 hearing, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner Nakshtra Singh and also Sukhchen Singh who was later on released on probation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 6.6.2007 whereas the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed on 24.6.2008. There is no revision or appeal before this Court against the appellate order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge so far as Sukhchen Singh is concerned. As regards, accused Nakshtra Singh, present petitioner, learned counsel submits that accused remained in custody for more than one month. During trial, he also remained in custody, therefore he should be sentenced to the period already undergone. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the fact that co-accused has already been granted probation by the appellate court, it seems just and reasonable that present petitioner be also sentenced to the period already undergone. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 380 IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, sentence of fine is maintained. Accused-petitioner be released forthwith,if not required in any other case, on depositing of fine. Else, he will undergo the sentence in default of payment of fine. [DEO NARAYAN THANVI],J. Praveen