#31 % 02.08.2011 Present: Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ivir. Pawan Narang, APP for the respondent/State. +Crl.M.A.No.8955/2011(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CrI.Rev.P. 345/2011 & CrI.M.B. 1317/2011 This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional ^ SessionsJudge dated 08'^July, 2011 in CriminalAppeal No. 29/2011titled 'Nazir Khan Vs. State' whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the sentence of 2 years Rl and fine of? 1000/- imposed by learned M.M. for the offence under Section 379 IPG. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in law by maintaining the sentence awarded by the Magistrate, ignoring the fact ^ that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 09 months. He is a poor man having responsibility of maintaining his wife and three children. It is submitted that the petitioner has realized his mistake and he intends to mend his ways and prove himself to be a responsible member of the society. Thus, learned counsel has pressed for reduction of sentence. Learned APP has strongly opposed the revision petition. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the plea of Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified O) the petitioner for reduction of sentence awarded by the learned Ivj.M. considering that the petitioner is a habitual offender having record of six previous convictions under various provision of law, including a case of robbery. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order of learned ASJ it is clear that the appeal against the quantum of sentence has been dismissed keeping in view that the petitioner is a habitual offender having record of six previous convictions. Thus, I find no legal infirmity in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which may call for interference by this court in revision. Revision petition as well as the miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed. (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE AUGUST 02, 2011 akb