[2025:RJ-JP:37217] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 192/2007 1. Rasid S/o Shri Kalua, 2. Asmat S/o Buddha Both R/o Budh Ki Hat, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur. At present in Central Jail, Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through the PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Namo Narayan Meena for Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 03 /0 9 /2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/09/2025 1. The petitioners Rasid and Asmat have preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 04.11.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.410/1990 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 457 of IPC:- two years Simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. Under Section 380 of IPC:- one year Simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. [2025:RJ-JP:37217] (2 of 4) [CRLR-192/2007] 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.51/2006, which was dismissed on 08.02.2007 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition. 4. During pendency of the petition, petitioner no.2-Asmat Khan died on 12.12.2020 and his death certificate is on record, therefore, revision petition of petitioner no.2 stands abated. 5. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one Ramesh Chand lodged a written report at police kotwali, Bharatpur on 01.03.1990 wherein it was alleged that his brother Shankarlal is residing at his father-in-law’s residence in Sad ki Mad, Gangamandir, Bharatpur and is presently working at Jaipur in Surajmal Ramniwas Oil Mill. Today in the morning his brother’s wife Smt. Suman informed that thief have stolen ornaments and cash from the house after breaking the lock. The details of the articles were also given in Ex.P.2 written report. On receipt of above report a first information report no.151/1990 for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 6. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioners before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. [2025:RJ-JP:37217] (3 of 4) [CRLR-192/2007] 7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner-Rasid submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner-Rasid and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner-Rasid is facing trial since 1990 and has remained in custody for above seven months, therefore, they may be released for the period already undergone by them. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 10 I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 11. 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 petitioners guilty of offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The appellate court has also after proper evaluation of material available on record rightly 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. [2025:RJ-JP:37217] (4 of 4) [CRLR-192/2007] 12. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner have not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioners are therefore affirmed. 13. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-Rasid, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering that there is no criminal antecedents exists and fact of protracted trial since 1990, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view, thus for the reasons discussed above, while maintaining the conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, the substantive sentence of the petitioner-Rasid is reduced to the period already undergone by him keeping the fine amount with the default imprisonment imposed by the courts below. 14. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner-Rasid is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 15. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/7