IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.378/1999. Mahaveer Prasad Vs. The State ofRajasthan. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.Rajneesh Gupta for the petitioner. Mrs.Sanju Saini on behalf of Mrs.Kamla Jain for the complainant. Mr.Pradep Srimal P.P for the State. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 21.5.1999 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in Cr.Appeal No.48/98 filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 23.10.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Cr.Case No.204/91 whereby he rejected the appeal and convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under ..2.. Section 408 for 3 years R.I with of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 1 year R.I and for offence under Section 420 IPC he was sentenced for 1 year R.I with fine of Rs,2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 6 months R.I. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1999 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in Cr.Appeal No.48/98 filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 23.10.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Cr.Case No.204/91 whereby he rejected the appeal and convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 408 for 3 years R.I with of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to ..3.. undergo further 1 year R.I and for offence under Section 420 IPC he was sentenced for 1 year R.I with fine of Rs,2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 6 months R.I. The brief facts of the case are that one Chandra Shekhar Sharma has lodged a FIR at Police Station Vamanvas, against the accused petitioner and the same was registered for the offence under Section 408, 409, 420, 469, 468 IPC. The police after investigation filed a challan for the offence under Section 408, 409, 420, 469, 468 IPC before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli has framed charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences . The charges were read over rand explained to the ..4.. accused petitioner who denied the charges and claimed trial. Statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C who denied charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The trial court after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 23.10.98 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above, against which the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Karauli who vide his judgment and order dated 21.5.1999 rejected the appeal. But in the appeal, the learned appellate court has convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 408 instead of Section 409, but maintained the sentence awarded by the trial court as indicated above and has also given benefit of doubt ..5.. for the offence under Section 460 IPC and convicted the accused petitioner only for the offence as indicated above. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders passed by both the courts below, preferred the present revision petition before this Court. Mr.Rajneesh Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf the petitioner has contended that the court below have mis-appreciated and mis-read the evidence on several points and have also failed to read and appreciate the evidence available on record. Learned counsel has contended that in the absence of the delivery of money neither an offence under Section 408 IPC nor an offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the accused petitioner. ..6.. He, therefore prayed that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the petitioner, if not, the petitioner should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. Mrs.Sanju Saini appearing on behalf of Mrs.Kamla Jain learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.Pradeep Srimal learned P.P have opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Without going into the merit of the case Mr.Rajneesh Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below but only requesting to this Court that he remained in judicial lockup 153 days, the occurrence took place in the year 1991 i.e. 18 years ..7.. ago, he is facing trial since last 18 years which tantamount to mental agony. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner is having children of marriageable age and he is not a habitual offender. He therefore prayed that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the petitioner, if not, the petitioner should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it proper to send back the petitioner to jail. Since the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for 153 days, ends of justice would be met in case the ..8.. petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him. I maintain the fine awarded by the trial Court which may be deposited as per direction of the trial court. This revision petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the court below is modified as indicated above. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. K