[2025:RJ-JP:37675] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 883/2006 1. Vishnu S/o Ramswaroop R/o Hanuman Chowk, Kanwas 2. Vishya alias Vishnu S/o Devilal R/o Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Kanwas 3. Indra Kumar S/o Kesrilal R/o Kanwas 4. Ramdev S/o Rampal R/o Kanwas (At present confined in Central Jail, Kota_ ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Timan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 10 /0 9 /2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/09/2025 1. The petitioners Vishnu, Vishya alias Vishnu, Indra Kumar and Ramdev have preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 12.08.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kanwas in Criminal Case No.1219/1998 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 457 of IPC:- two years Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Under Section 380 of IPC:- two years Rigorous 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:37675] (2 of 4) [CRLR-883/2006] 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, Kota in Criminal Appeal No.10/2004, which was dismissed on 26.07.2006 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. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 02.06.1997, Ram Kishan alongwith Laxmi Narayan went in the Police Station, Kanwas and submitted a written report whereby he stated that in the Godown situated behind his house, 85 bags containing Dhania were stored. It was further stated that when at about 9.00 AM he went to the Godown he found that the lock was broken and one Sariya was lying near the gate and the door of the stair was also found open. He found that some bags were missing and some Dhania was lying scattered. On counting 7 bags were found missing. On the basis of above report police registered FIR No.178/97 and started investigation. 5. 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. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:37675] (3 of 4) [CRLR-883/2006] 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioners however makes a limited prayer that the petitioners are facing trial since 1997 and have remained in custody for one month seventeen days, therefore, they may be released for the period already undergone by them. 8. 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. 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 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. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioners have not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his [2025:RJ-JP:37675] (4 of 4) [CRLR-883/2006] arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioners are therefore affirmed. 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering that there is no criminal antecedents reported against them and fact of protracted trial since 1997 and have remained in custody for above one month direct that the petitioners shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with further undertaking that they shall maintains peace and good behavior for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioners are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg /