(1 ) Criminal Revision No. 611 of 2010 Babulal @ Bablu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ****************** O r d e r 13-12-2011 Shri Dharmendra Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B. K. Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. Petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27/07/2010 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.20/2010, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08/01/2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Guna (MP) in Criminal Case No.482/2007, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- . 2. At the time of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not challenging the finding of trial Court with respect to his conviction and only prayer is made with respect to awarding the sentence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial court during trial and thereafter before appellate court during course of appeal. Petitioner is having no previous criminal history and he remained in custody for about 10 days after passing of the judgment by learned lower appellate Court. He has already paid fine (2 ) Criminal Revision No. 611 of 2010 amount as awarded by trial court and affirmed by appellate court. Therefore, it is prayed that while awarding sentence, a lenient view is to be adopted. 3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State has formally opposed the prayer of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 4. As learned counsel for the petitioner is not challenging the finding of the conviction, therefore, discussion of evidence is not necessary. Only one point is to be decided, is awarding of sentence. 5. Considering the nature of offence and also considering the fact that petitioner is facing trial since 2007 and he is the first offender and there is no previous criminal history alleged against him,therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the conviction of petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is maintained, reducing the period of sentence as already undergone by him in custody. The fine amount as awarded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court shall remain as it is. 6. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner shall stand discharged. (Anil Sharma) Judge mkb/-