IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT MAHMOOD KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 315 OF 1997 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated September 19, 1997 of Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Ajmer whereby the accused petitioner was acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 414 IPC, but his conviction under section 411 IPC was maintained. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ajmer convicted the accused petitioner vide his judgment dated July 19, 1995 for the offence under sections 411 and 414 IPC and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each and further fine of Rs. 200 each was imposed and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month on each count. Date of Order : February 17, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. P.R.S. Rajawat, for the petitioner. Mr. J.R.Bijrania, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Mahmood Khan against the order dated September 19, 1997 of Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Ajmer whereby he was acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 414 IPC, but his conviction under section 411 IPC was maintained. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ajmer convicted the accused petitioner vide his judgment dated July 19, 1995 for the offence under sections 411 and 414 IPC and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each and further fine of Rs. 200 each was imposed and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month on each count. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge whereby the conviction of the petitioner under section 411 IPC was maintained and he was sentenced to suffer three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made simple request this court for reducing the period of sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner in confinement, which is 46 days in the instant matter. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission. The incident in the instant matter took place on May 17, 1993. Co- accused in the present case have also been acquitted for the offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at present 60 years of age and he has marriageable children and he has remained in custody for 46 days. In these circumstances while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 411 IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already under gone by him. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands cancelled and he need not surrender. 3. For these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner under section 411 IPC is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the period already under gone by him. Since the petitioner is on bail he need not to surrender and his bail bonds stands discharged. As the main petition has been disposed the stay application also stands disposed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/