1 9 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.66/1995 Bhoj Raj Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 26th March 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Gaurav Singh for Mr. Sandeep Mehta,for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor. .... BY THE COURT: This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.1995, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No.20/1993 whereby the learned Appellate Judge partly allowed the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27.11.1993, as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No.604/1989; and, while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC, reduced the sentence from 1 year’s simple imprisonment to that of 6 months' simple imprisonment. The accused-petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 379 IPC when charge-sheet was filed after investigation on the FIR lodged by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (Mechanical Division), Jaisalmer on 01.08.1989 with the allegations that certain parts of the tankers that were in the charge of his Junior Engineer were found stolen. After framing of the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced the relevant documentary evidence. The petitioner, in the plea recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution 2 evidence and, while submitting that he was falsely implicated for having taken part in agitation relating to murder of one Karnaram, examined 2 witnesses in support of his case. The learned Magistrate did not find the ingredient of the offence under Section 379 IPC established against the petitioner but found that the accused-petitioner had been in possession of 2 dynamos that were stolen from the vehicles in question; and, while holding that the petitioner had been in possession of such parts of the vehicles knowing them to be stolen, convicted him for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 1 year. The learned Appellate Judge noticed the reasoning and findings of the learned Magistrate and found no case for interference in the order of conviction but considered it proper to reduce the sentence to that of 6 months' simple imprisonment. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-petitioner in this revision petition that the learned Courts below have acted wholly illegally in returning the finding of guilt against the petitioner without any legal evidence being available on record so as to connect him with the articles in question; and recovery having not been proved by the motbirs and even the test identification parade on the articles having not been carried out, and the articles allegedly recovered having not been exhibited, there was no basis for the learned Courts below to reach to the conclusion that the articles recovered were the same one that had been stolen. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner has faced this case for last about 21 years and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to imprisonment 3 at this length of time. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the impugned order. Having heard the learned counsel and having examined the record, so far the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds no ground for interference particularly when the learned Magistrate has returned the finding against the petitioner after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and the pieces of evidence ultimately connecting towards the factum of the petitioner’s conscious possession of the stolen parts of the vehicles. The findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court again after proper examination of the record of the case. So far the aspect of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the accusation relates to the incident of the year 1989; and petitioner has faced this case for about 21 years and has remained in custody for about 14 days. Nothing else has been placed before the Court to justify further imprisonment of the petitioner in relation to this case at this length of time. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of the period already undergone. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed; while the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC is maintained, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner is on bail and need not surrender. The bail bonds stand cancelled. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni