JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST (P.A.) Cases, Tonk in Criminal Appeal No. 49/1999 and against the order dated 17.6.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tonk in Criminal Case No. 295/1993 convicting the petitioner under Section 457 I.P.C. for 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further 10 days simple imprisonment, thereby the Special Judge partly allowed the appeal and convicted the petitioner under Section 456 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine 1 month's further simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.6.1993 one Mohammed Yakub lodged a first information report at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk. It was stated in the aforesaid report that in the night at about 11.45 when his sister's son Rafik and daughter-in-law was sleeping in the house then one person entered in the house. As the noise came, his sister's son and daughter-in-law woke up when they saw that the accused-petitioner was in the house, they tried to catch hold of the petitioner but he run away. 3. On the aforesaid report a first information report was registered under Section 457 I.P.C. and the investigation commenced. 4. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Hasan has contended that the petitioner is facing trial from the last 17 years and the age of the petitioner is about 40 years. He has marriageable children and belongs to a respectable family. It is also contended that it is a first offence of the petitioner in his life and he is not a habitual offender and further prays that he be released on probation or for the period already undergone by him in the judicial custody because he remains in judicial custody near about 22 days. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. In view of the above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think it proper to send back the petitioner in judicial custody after 17 years. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner be released for the period already undergone by him in the custody. 6. In view of the above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think it proper to send back the petitioner in judicial custody after 17 years. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner be released for the period already undergone by him in the custody. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine of Rs. 2,000/- in the trial Court within a period of two months, the same should be given to the complainant of the case.Revision petition partly allowed. *******