[2025:RJ-JP:31336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1101/2007 Hukum Singh S/o Samanta, Resident of Village Kanjoli, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (At present confined in Sewar Jail, Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 30/07/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 22/08/2025 1. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC by judgment dated 10.01.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 152/2001 and sentenced as under:- One year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, further fifteen days simple imprisonment 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.19/2007, which was dismissed on 16.06.2007. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. [2025:RJ-JP:31336] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1101/2007] 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 02.03.2001 a written report was submitted by complainant Uday Singh at Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur stating that he was standing on the counter of LIC office to deposit his installment of Rs. 15,073/-, suddenly a boy of 20 years standing near him snatched away the said amount and tried to run away. When the complainant shouted, some persons present in the office and complainant himself followed and caught him then he threw the money and tried to run away. Thereafter with the help of police complainant caught him at Bijali Ghar Circle. 5. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner has remained in custody for eight days, therefore, he may be released for the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts [2025:RJ-JP:31336] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1101/2007] and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any further indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of offence. The appellate court has also after evaluating the material available on record dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below, which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. 12. Having regard to the nature of the offence, age of the accused at relevant time with no criminal antecedents, immediate recovery of the stolen money and lapse of almost 24 years, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view, thus for the reasons discussed above, while maintaining the conviction under Section 379 IPC, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by keeping the fine amount with the default imprisonment imposed by the courts below. [2025:RJ-JP:31336] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1101/2007] 13. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/18