JUDGMENT 1. - After investigation of F.I.R. No. 189/1994 of P.S. Kotwali, Churu, a charge-sheet was filed and Cr. Case No. 393/1994 was registered in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu against accused Abdul Kareem Telagi who pleaded guilty to the charge and he was sentenced under Section 420 I.P.C. on 11.11.2009 by seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine one year's additional rigorous imprisonment was also ordered against him. Similarly under Section 120-B I.P.C. also he was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one year's additional rigorous imprisonment was ordered against him. The amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- had .been recovered from the accused Abdul Kareem Telagi in this case out of which Rs. 2,01,000/- were given to the different complainant and remaining Rs. 2,79,000/-were forfeited in favour of the Government. 2. That judgment was upheld in Cr. Appeal No. 10/2010 namely Abdul Kareem Telagi v. State of Rajasthan and by judgment dated 25.6.2010 , the learned Sessions Judge, Churu had upheld the conviction and sentence. 3. Now in this criminal revision, accused petitioner had tried to challenge the merits of his conviction but as per Section 375 Cr.P.C.; "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal, if the conviction is by a Court of Session, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence". Otherwise also in this revision we have not to discuss the merits of the conviction but we have to examine the legality of the sentence only. Alternative prayer of the accused petitioner is that he is in jail since 1996 and about forty two criminal cases had been lodged against him all over India under Section 420 I.P.C. etc., which all have been decided till date and he wants the benefits of 428 Cr.P.C. and his only prayer is that he should be released on undergone sentence. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that in the present case accused petitioner Abdul Kareem Telagi was taken in custody only on 9.11.2009 and thenceforth he is in custody in this case and so as per the learned Public Prosecutor accused petitioner cannot take benefit of undergone sentence of other cases. 5. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that in the present case accused petitioner Abdul Kareem Telagi was taken in custody only on 9.11.2009 and thenceforth he is in custody in this case and so as per the learned Public Prosecutor accused petitioner cannot take benefit of undergone sentence of other cases. 5. In reply to the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even from 9.11.2009 accused petitioner has suffered sentence of more than 3'A years and so it has been prayed that looking to the illness of the accused petitioner and looking to the fact that almost all other criminal cases have been finalised and accused petitioner is waiting for his release only in two revisions which are pending in this Court, his sentence should be reduced to years. A prayer for reduction in the amount of fine has also been made by the accused petitioner. 6. After hearing both the parties, and after going through the charges which were levelled against the petitioner in this case, I am convinced that sentence passed against accused petitioner by the Courts below is disproportionately high and hence in this case under both the charges accused petitioner is ordered to be released on undergone sentence. Order of forfeiture of Rs. 2,79,000/- in favour of the Government has not been challenged by the accused petitioner, so the order to pay the amount of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the accused petitioner is also hereby set aside in the interests of justice. This revision is partly accepted as above. The accused petitioner Abdul Kareem Telagi be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Copy of this order be sent to the lower Court along with the record of the case and to the Superintendent Central Jail, Bangalore also where accused petitioner is said to be undergoing the sentence.Revision partly allowed. *******