Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar in criminal appeal No. 131/11 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, Alwar in criminal case No. 232/142 /2011 convicting the accused petitioner under Section 379 IPC for three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.7.2010 the complainant Mohan Lal Sharma lodged a written report Ex. P.1 against unknown person at Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar with regard to the incident alleged to have taken place on 25.7.2010. 3. On the basis of that report, the Police registered a criminal case bearing FIR No. 342/10 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, the Police submitted challan against the accused petitioner under section 379 IPC in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, Alwar who took cognizance against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused petitioner for the aforesaid section and the accused petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents in support of its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby he denied the prosecution case. 5. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 3.6.2011 while holding guilty convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sec. 379 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above and acq-uitted other accused persons namely Assu Khan and Hakmuddin Khan Meo. 6. Aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar. The learned appellate court after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 5.7.2011 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.2011 passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments dated 3.6.2011 and 5.7.2011 passed by the learned courts below, this revision petition. 8. The learned appellate court after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 5.7.2011 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.2011 passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments dated 3.6.2011 and 5.7.2011 passed by the learned courts below, this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that the judgments dated 5.7.2011 and 3.6.2011 passed by the learned courts below are contrary to the provisions of law and facts as without due appreciation of evidence the courts below have passed the aforesaid judgments. 9. He has further contended that while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the court should keep in view the two cardinal principles; one is that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and second is that the burden on the accused should not be so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. 11. He has further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent, contradictory and suffer from infirmities. 11. He has further contended that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it appears that arrest memo, seizure memo and other documents were prepared at the Police Station and not on the spot. 12. He has further contended that complainant PW.1 Mohan Lal has not proved the prosecution story. The prosecution has completely failed to prove guilt of the accused petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, conviction and sentence passed against the accused petitioner is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. 13. Lastly, he has prayed that the accused petitioner has been convicted for a period of three years and already he has served out the sentence for a period of seventeen months and in view of this he should be released for the period already undergone by him or in the alternative benefit of probation be granted to the petitioner and simultaneously he does not want to challenge the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. 14. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statements of the prosecution witnesses and specifically on the statement of PW.6 Phool Chand which is reproduced as under:- ^^?kVuk 25-7-2010 dh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd jkex<+ ls xksfoUnx<+ ds ekxZ ij dkQh okguksa dh vkoktkgh gSA xkM+h dks lyhe mQZ eqYyk pyk jgk FkkA eqfYteku dh bZenkn ls cM+h eqf'dy ls xkM+h dks :dok;k FkkA xkM+h dks ykSd fd;k ;k ugha ;g esjs /;ku ugha gS ysfdu nks eqfYte dwn dj Hkkx x;s FksA ge lc us ,d lkFk feydj lyhe mQZ eqYyk dks idM+k FkkA tc lyhe mQZ eqYyk dks idM+k Fkk rc HkhM+ HkkM+ bdV~Bh ugha Fkh rc ge gh yksx FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus ?kVuk LFky dk uD'kk ekSdk Fkkus ij cuk;k gksA eqfYte lyhe mQZ eqYyk gS eq>s bl ckr dk irk eqfYte ds }kjk [kqn uke crkus ij pyk FkkA eqfYte dks 10-30 lqcg xkM+h dks tIr fd;k Fkk vkSj lqcg 10-35 ij eqfYte dks fxjrkj fd;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd geus jaft'k dh otg ls eqfYte dks >waBk Qalk;k gksA** 15. Learned P.P. has also drawn attention of this Court towards para No. 11 of the judgment of the learned trial Court which is reproduced as under:- ^^vc tgka rd cjkenxh dk iz'u gS bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls Li"V gS fd mDr pksjh'kqnk okgu dks vfHk;qDr lyhe mQZ eqYyk ds dCts ls tIr fd;k tkuk rQrh'k esa vk;k gS ftldh iw.kZ:i ls rkbZn djrs gq, izdj.k ds vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-MCY;w- 6 QwypUn us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa dgk gS fd fnukad 26-7-10 dks mls eqdnek uEcj 342@10 /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-la- dh i=koyh rQrh'k gsrq izkIr gqbZ rFkk ulokjh ekSM+ ij vfHk;qDr lyhe mQZ eqYyk ds dCts ls fid vi eSDl uEcj vkj-ts- 32 th-,- 3724 dks cjken fd;k x;k ftldh QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ ih-5 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q vius gLrk{kj gksuk mDr xokg us dgk gSA mDr xokg us viuh ftjg esa Hkh Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd xkM+h dks lyhe mQZ eqYyk pyk jgk Fkk rFkk eqfYteku dh enn ls cM+h eqf'dy ls xkM+h dks :dok;k Fkk vFkkZr mDr xokg us Li"V:i ls vfHk;qDr lyhe mQZ eqYyk ds dCts ls pksjh'kqnk xkM+h cjken gksuk dFku fd;k gS rFkk QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ ih-5 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd cjkenxh jkepj.k dkaLVscy o eksgu yky ds lkeus fd;k tkuk crk;k gS ftl jkepj.k dks vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls crkSj xokg ih-M- 4 ijhf{kr djk;k gS ftlus QnZ cjkenxh dks Li"V :i ls lkfcr djrs gq, lyhe mQZ eqYyk dks QwypUn ,-,l-vkbZ- }kjk vius lkeus fxjrkj fd;k tkuk Li"V:i ls dgk gS rFkk dgk fd esjs lkeus ulokjh eksM+ ls xkM+h uEcj vkj-ts- 32 th-,- 3724 dks tIr fd;k FkkA mDr xokg us lyhe mQZ eqYyk dh fu'kknsgh ls uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih 10 ch cuk;k tkuk Li"V:i ls dgk gS rFkk ftjg esa Hkh mDr xokg us Li"V:i ls dgk gS rFkk ftjg esa Hkh mDr xokg us Li"V:i ls dgk gS fd ulokjh eksM+ ij 10-15 feuV gh :ds Fks rFkk ogka lyhe dks fxjrkj fd;k vkSj xkM+h cjken dh FkhA mDr xokg us Hkh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds dFkuksa dh rkbZn djrs gq, xkM+h dks lyhe mQZ eqYyk }kjk pyk;k tkuk rFkk ,-,l-vkbZ- xkM+h :dokuk vkSj uke irk iwNus ij viuk uke lyhe mQZ eqYyk crk;k tkuk Li"V:i ls dFku fd;k gS rFkk dgk gS fd mlesa lyhe mQZ eqYyk vdsyk cSBk Fkk ;|fi mDr xokg us cjkenxh LFky ij eksgu yky dh mifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa fojks/kkHkk"kh dFku fd;s gS rFkk eksgu yky ih-M- 1 us Hkh vius lkeus cjkenxh ds rF; ls viuh ftjg esa bUdkj fd;k gS ijUrq lkFk gh eksgu yky us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs lkeus xkM+h lyhe mQZ eqYyk ls cjken ugha gqbZ gksA blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd cjkenxh dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds vykok xokg jkepj.k us Hkh Li"V:i ls lkfcr fd;k gS blfy, dsoy ek= bl fojks/kkHkk"k ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd pksjh'kqnk xkM+h dks lyhe mQZ eqYyk ds dCts ls cjken ugha fd;k x;k gksA** 16. He has further drawn attention towards para No. 8 of the judgment of the learned appellate court which is reproduced as under:- ^^bl izdkj mijksDr foospu ls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr lyhe mQZ eqYyk }kjk Qfj;knh eksgu yky dh fid-vQ eSDl xkM+h vkj-ts- 32 th-,- 3724 fnukad 25-7-2010 dks pksjh dh xbZA vr% lyhe mQZ eqYyk /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-la- ds vijk/k esa nks"kfl) gksus ;ksX; gS vkSj U;k;ky; us tks vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZ dks tks nks"kfl) ?kksf"kr fd;k gS] og iw.kZr% U;k;ksfpr gSA tgka rd n.Mkns'k dk iz'u gS vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us viuh lk{; esa vfHk;qDr dh iwoZ nks"kfl) dk fjdkWMZ izn'kZ ih- 12 i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;k gSA ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZ bl izdkj dh pksjh dk vknru vijk/kh gSA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o n.Mkns'k esa dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj vihy vihykFkhZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha ikbZ tkrh gSaA** 17. In view of above, learned P.P. has contended that after due appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court has passed the aforesaid conviction and sentence which was affirmed by the learned appellate court. 18. He has further contended that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender. Number of cases were pending against him at the time of the trial which are as under: (1) Case No. 186/07 under section 411 IPC PS Laxmangarh dated 29.6.2007; (2) Case No. 190/07 under Section 379 IPC PS Ramgarh dated 24.6.2007; (3) Case No. 90/07 under Section 379 IPC PS Aravali Vihar dated 14.5.2007; (4) Case No. 44/08 under Section 379 IPC PS Shivaji Park dated 31.1.2008 and (5) Case No. 10/05 under Section 379 IPC PS GRP Alwar dated 28.2.2005. 19. According to learned P.P. such type of persons should not be released for the period already undergone or on probation. Such type of persons should also be not benefited under Section 433 Cr.P.C. Hence, prayed that conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner should not be set aside. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment passed by the courts below and other material available on record. 21. I have gone through the statement of the investigating officer Phool Chand PW.6 who has clearly stated that he has prepared the map Ex. 10 in presence of the accused petitioner. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment passed by the courts below and other material available on record. 21. I have gone through the statement of the investigating officer Phool Chand PW.6 who has clearly stated that he has prepared the map Ex. 10 in presence of the accused petitioner. He recovered the motor cycle No. RJ 32 GA 3724 from the custody of the accused petitioner. He has prepared recovery memo Ex. P.5 which has been signed by the accused petitioner identified by the witnesses. This statement was also given by the complainant. 22. The record reveals that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender and five criminal cases are pending against him out of which four are of theft and one is of receiving of stolen property. The accused petitioner has made it his business. I am also agree with the argument of learned P.P. that such type of hard core criminals should not be shown any indulgence giving concession either releasing on probation or release on the period already undergone as prayed by the learned counsel Mr. Gurvinder Singh. As also such persons should not be benefited under Section 433 Cr.P.C. The should remain in jail till completion of period of sentence awarded by the courts below. 23. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 24. Since the revision petition itself has been dismissed, the suspension of sentence application stands dismissed.