2025:UHC:8399 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 19.9.2025 CRLR/44/2020 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2014, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No. 198 of 2012, convicting the revisionist under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of ₹8,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment. 4. Brief facts as borne out from the record are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant, Bharat Narayan Kanyal, proprietor of Diya Gift Centre, alleging that on 09.07.2012, after closing his shop at night, he returned the next morning to find the lock broken and several items missing, namely: nine mobile phones, 55 memory cards, 36 batteries, six Bluetooth phones, recharge coupons of Idea and BSNL, 18 chargers, and ₹8,000/- cash. On receiving information, the police apprehended the revisionist and upon search of his bag recovered four mobile 2025:UHC:8399 phones, four chargers, four headphones and two batteries. During interrogation, the revisionist allegedly confessed to having sold the other items and spent the cash. On this basis, investigation ensued and charge-sheet under Section 411 IPC was filed. The trial court convicted the revisionist, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that, the alleged recovery was not supported by any independent witness, making it doubtful; that, the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective; that the revisionist has no previous criminal history, is a first- time offender, and has already undergone about one month of incarceration. It was further urged that in such circumstances, the revisionist deserves the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgments but fairly conceded that the revisionist is a first-time offender with no previous conviction. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is noteworthy that the incident pertains to the year 2012, i.e., more than 13 years ago. During this long lapse of time, there is no material to indicate that the revisionist has indulged in any other criminal activity or has any antecedents. The revisionist is admittedly a first-time offender. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation, the period of litigation already suffered, and the principles underlying Section 360 Cr.P.C. and 2025:UHC:8399 Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, this Court is of the view that instead of sending the revisionist back to jail, it would serve the ends of justice if he is extended the benefit of probation. 9. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the revisionist under Section 411 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is set aside and he is released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year. He shall remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer concerned for the said period. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the criminal revision stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2014 and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Didihat in Criminal Case No. 198 of 2012, so far as they relate to the sentence of imprisonment, are hereby set aside. 10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 19.09.2025 Mamta