[2025:RJ-JP:21351] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 169/2006 Niroti Lal S/o Shri Ghantoli Ram, R/o Gram Itamda, P.S. Bhusawar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) (Presently in Central Jail at Sewar, Distt. Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 16/04/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 23/05/2025 1. The petitioner Niroti Lal has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 19.5.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.196/1990 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 409 of IPC:- one year Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment. 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.34/2003, which was also dismissed on 13.2.2006 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months [2025:RJ-JP:21351] (2 of 4) [CRLR-169/2006] imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that during working on the post of Patwari at Halka Gopalgarh, the petitioner recovered an amount of Rs. 3222.46 but he has not deposited the same in the Government Treasury, therefore, it is alleged that he misappropriated the same. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. The concerned court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner 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. 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 two months sixteen days, therefore, he may be granted benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. [2025:RJ-JP:21351] (3 of 4) [CRLR-169/2006] 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner guilty of offence under Section 409 of IPC. The appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal and reduced the sentence. 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. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 409 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 the petitioner has [2025:RJ-JP:21351] (4 of 4) [CRLR-169/2006] deposited the entire amount in Government treasury, there is no criminal antecedents exists and fact of protracted trial, direct that the petitioner 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 he shall maintains peace and good behavior for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 13. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/135