JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.9.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (I) No.1 (South) Kota in Regular Case No.249/2007 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 392 IPC and sentenced to three yeas simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and also against the judgment dated 25.1.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota in Appeal no.37/2008 upholding the judgment of the trial court. 2. Briefly stated the facts, for the disposal of the present petition, are that on 19.8.2007, a written report was filed by the complainant- Abdul Kayyum at Police Station Kunhari, Kota alleging therein that on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., while the complainant was going to his house at Chhavani Kota on his motor cycle and when he reached from Rabripur to Shotiya Talai near Dabi Road, three boys who were following him on their motor cycle, stopped him and snatched away mobile phone NOKIA 7610 and Rs. 3,995/- from his pocket and also took away his motor cycle on the point of knife and country-made pistol. After 10-15 minutes of the incident, one truck RJ 20 G 2540 loaded with stones reached at the spot and in that truck he reached at Gujaron Ke Dhabe near Army Camp and informed about the incident to his friends Abdul Naeem and Hariramji. After some time, a jeep of the police reached there in which he reached the police station and lodged the complaint. He also stated in the complaint that if the accused come in front of him, he can recognise them. 3. On the basis of above complaint, FIR No.197/2007 was registered at police station Kunhadi, Kota for the offence under section 392/34 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused persons for the above-said offence. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and produced certain documents. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case. 5. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and produced certain documents. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case. 5. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide its judgment and order dated 6.9.2008 convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 392 IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its judgment dated 25.1.2010. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor for the State. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits, has straight away submitted that since the petitioner has already undergone 2 years 10 months and 11 days in jail out of three years of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court, in the interest of justice and also in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Learned public prosecutor has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. 10. After having considered the submission made before me, in my opinion, the ends of justice would meet in case the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and to this extent the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed. While the conviction awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is maintained, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******