Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 689 (RAJ)

Sonam Sherapa v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 24.12.2011 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 796/2011 convicting them under Section 380 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them for a period of 9 months' RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI. The conviction and sentences have been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 13.2.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2012. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners but prays that looking to the fact that the petitioners are residents of Nepal and had come to visit Rajasthan and due to inadvertence, they picked up the ornaments from the shop of the complainant. He further submits that it is the first criminal case against the petitioners and they have already remained in custody for a period of more than six months and seven days, thus, a lenient view be taken and the sentences awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Per contra, learned P.P. has supported the impugned judgments and submits that the sentence should not be reduced. 5. I have given by thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned judgments as well as the record of the case. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, looking to the fact that the stolen article has already been recovered from the petitioners and has also been directed to be returned back to the complainant and the fact that the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than six months and that no other criminal case is pending against them as per charge-sheet, this Court deems it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioners to the period already undergone by them. 7. Resultantly, this revision petition is partly allowed and whilst maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. 7. Resultantly, this revision petition is partly allowed and whilst maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. The petitioners will be entitled to make a prayer for return of their personal belongings i.e. articles seized from them excluding stolen article, in the Court below as per law.Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith.Revision partly allowed. *******