JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal revision is directed against the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated 29-6-85 convicting the accused under Section 411 IPC and sentencing him for three months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 600/- and in default to further undergo one month's R.I. and acquitted of the charges under Sections 467, 381 IPC which was initially awarded to him by the learned Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Cr. Original No. 216/83 dated 27-9-84. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Sunil Mehta and learned Public Prosecutor Shri H.R. Panwar on behalf of the State at length and have gone through the record given by both the Courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention on the information memo (Ex.P. 7-A) and the recovery memo (Ex.P. 3-A). Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me the decision rendered by Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1949 and also 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the aforesaid arguments and he urged before me that the instant revision is concluded by the concurrent finding of fact and as such the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar and in my humble opinion reappraisal of oral and documentary evidence under Section 397 IPC is surprisingly allowed in rarest of rare cases. Ordinarily the revisional Courts refuses to re appreciate the oral and documentary evidence which has already been appreciated by both the Courts below. The argument raised on behalf of the accused-petitioner is a disputed question of fact which requires reappraisal of documentary evidence of information memo Ex.P. 7-A and recovery memo Ex.P. 3-A which is not permissible. The present case does not fall as one of the rarest of rare case where reappraisal of documentary evidence can be said to be necessary. 6. A careful scrutiny of the judgment given by both the Courts below throw a flood of light that the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below are based on analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record. 6. A careful scrutiny of the judgment given by both the Courts below throw a flood of light that the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below are based on analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record. Both the Courts below have not committed any error in appreciating Ex.P. 7-A and Ex.P. 3-A. The finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below are based on cogent and convincing reasons with which I am in full agreement. In view of the aforesaid discussion the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below are hereby affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted before me on the question of sentence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident alleged to have taken place on 25-4-77 and the petitioner has already remained in jail for more than one month and 15 days approximately. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case I feel it necessary that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the 'accused-petitioner.In the result, the instant revision is partly allowed on the question of sentence and the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below are hereby maintained. The accused-petitioner is already on bail, therefore, he need not to surrender his bail bonds and the bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Bail application allowed. *******