JUDGMENT 1. - The case has been fixed on the application for suspension of sentence but with the consent of both the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. Brief facts of the case are Ashok Kumar submitted a written report to S.H.O. of Police Station Vijaynagar stating therein that he purchased Indica Car, whom he kept at Sri Vijaynagar Taxi Stand. On 25.1.2009, two young boys and one lady hired his taxi for Godamedi and one passenger has also been taken from the bus stand who was also a young boy having turban. They reached at Nanuwali. They all stopped the car and when complainant demanded the fare, tow boys kept the pistol on his skull and set on the driver seat. They have taken them to Raisinghnagar. At Ganganagar, one boy and lady left the car and other two boys have taken him to Nathanwali and there they shut him in the car and went away. Nine hundred rupees and Mobile phone have also been snatched from the complainant. On the basis of the above report, F.I.R. No. 37/2009 has been registered for the offences under Sections 392, 342 and 120-B I.P.C., After the trial, the present petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 392, 342 and 392/120-B I.P.C. and has been awarded three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 342 I.P.C., the petitioner has been awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, to further undergo seven days' imprisonment and for the offence under Section 392/120-B I.P.C., the petitioner has been awarded three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP for the State. 4. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the judgment of conviction and he wants to make submission only on the point of sentence. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP for the State. 4. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the judgment of conviction and he wants to make submission only on the point of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is behind the Bar since 17.2.2009 and he has already served the sentence for more than 21/2 years, out of total sentence of three years which has been awarded for the offence under Sections 392 and 392/120B I.P.C. and for the other offence under Section 342, I.P.C. he has already served the complete sentence. Hence looking at the nature of offence and his rural background, a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence and the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. 5. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision petition is partly allowed and the judgment of conviction of the petitioner is maintained but so far as the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is concerned, while maintaining the sentence for the offence under Section 342, I.P.C., the sentence for the offence under Sections 392 and 392/120-B I.P.C. is reduced to the sentence already undergone. However, the accused-petitioner shall pay the fine awarded by the trial Court and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court. All the sentences shall run concurrently.Revision petition partly allowed. *******