[2025:RJ-JP:19094] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 747/2019 Mahendra @ Pappu S/o Ramkumar Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Nadi Johadi Tan Piprali Ps Dadiya Dist. Sikar At Present Confined At Dist. Jail Sikar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/05/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from judgment dated 14.11.2018 in criminal appeal no. 96/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.3, Camp Laxmangarh, District Sikar whereby learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction under Section 411 of IPC but set aside the sentence and passed a new sentence of Rigorous imprisonment of 21 months and fine of ₹1000/- with direction to set off period of custody already undergone. Initially, this petition accused was tried in a matter arising out of FIR no. 271/2012 P.S. Laxmangarh, District Sikar wherein he was convicted under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years with fine of ₹500/- 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report received from SHO P.S. Laxmangarh and also District Jail, Sikar. [2025:RJ-JP:19094] (2 of 2) [CRLR-747/2019] 3. As per report, the petitioner accused Mahendra @ Pappu has already served the sentence. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the matter may be disposed of accordingly. 5. Having considered the fact that the matter has been listed with a defect that there is delay of 45 days in filing the instant revision petition. Despite time no application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed for condonation of delay. 6. Unless an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed for condonation of delay, same cannot be condoned. The conviction was upheld by the appellate court, and the sentence has already been reduced by the appellate court. The petitioner has already served the sentence. The criminal background is evident from the cases registered against the petitioner. As per details submitted by P.S. Dadiya through learned Public Prosecutor, 9 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, therefore, there is no ground for interference in the order of conviction or sentence. 7. In view of aforesaid, the instant criminal revision petition is dismissed as barred by law of limitation and also on merits. 8. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /55