JUDGMENT 1. - Since these three revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner(s) against the judgment/order dated 18.11.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar, hence the arguments have been learned together and they are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: "On 9.7.2003, a complaint was submitted by one Shri Har Govind before the police Station, Shivaji Park, Alwar mentioning therein that on that day when the complainant went to the temple between 5:00 A.M. to 5:15 A.M. for routine worship, he saw the lock of main gate had been broken and theft had been committed. He entered inside the temple and saw that the broken lock was lying near the charity box and the clothes and other things of deity were lying here and there and following things were missing : (i) Statute of Laddu Gopal worth Rs. 270/- (ii) Ornaments of Shri Durga Ji, Radha Ji and Sita Ji and Flute worth Rs. 75/- (iii) Chhatra made of silver worth Rs. 1,000/- (iv) Charity money from charity box Rs. 500/- (Approx.) and some other things as well." 3. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No. 171/2003 was lodged for the offence under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The Trial Court framed charge against accused Ramesh Chand for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and against other accused persons Jagdish, Ratti Ram, Gopal @ Babbu and Baccha for the offence under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C. and the same were read over to them, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused persons were recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2005 convicted the accused persons Baccha, Gopal, Ratti Ram @ Rajesh for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and convicted co-accused Ramesh Chand for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced them as under: Accused Baccha Meena, Gopal and Ratti Ram @ Rajesh : Under Section 457 I.P.C. : To undergo 3 years' S.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. Under Section 380 I.P.C. : To undergo 3 years' S.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. Accused Ramesh : Convicted for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 year's S.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. 4. Since accused Kanhaiya absconded, as such the proceedings against him were kept pending and accused Jagdish was not produced from J.C., as such the case qua him was adjourned by the Trial Court. Subsequently accused Jagdish was also convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced as under: Under Section 457 I.P.C. : To undergo 3 years' S.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. Under Section 380 I.P.C. : To undergo 3 years' S.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court, the accused persons Ratti Ram, Gopal, Baccha Meena and Jagdish preferred appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar vide judgment dated 18.11.2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons and affirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 6. Feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court, these three revision petitions have been filed by the accused Baccha Meena, Gopal and Rati Ram before this Court. 7. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar vide judgment dated 18.11.2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons and affirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 6. Feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court, these three revision petitions have been filed by the accused Baccha Meena, Gopal and Rati Ram before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) has contended that the petitioners are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below, but they are only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that accused Baccha Meena has remained in custody for about 5 months and 10 days; accused Gopal has remained in custody for about 5 months and 10 days and accused Rati Ram has remained in custody for about 9 months and 14 days; the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class and it is the first offence of their life; the accused persons are old aged persons, having the children of marriageable age, they are not the habitual offenders, hence they should be released on probation, if not, then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in custody, as indicated here-in-above. He has further contended that the accused persons are ready to deposit the amount of fine, as imposed by this Court and the same may be given to the complainant of this case, so that he may utilise the same for the purpose of improvement and development of temple. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has defended the impugned judgment/order passed by the Courts below and Hated the same to be just and proper. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 10. Although, it is a fact that the accused persons have remained in custody tor the aforesaid period, but instead of releasing them on probation and keeping in view the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of fine, as imposed by this Court, I deem it just and proper to release the petitioners for the period already undergone by them in custody, as indicated here-in-above, provided each of the petitioner deposits a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with the complainant of this case, within period of one month from today. 20,000/- with the complainant of this case, within period of one month from today. 11. Hence, all these three revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions; (i) The revision petitions filed by the petitioners are partly allowed; (ii) Their conviction is maintained, but their sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by them in custody, as indicated here-in-above. (iii) The petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (iv) A fine of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed upon each of the petitioner and he/they is/are directed to deposit the same with the Trial Court within a period of one month from today. (v) On deposition of the aforesaid amount, the Trial Court shall inform to the complainant in this regard and upon moving an application by him in this regard, the Trial Court shall release the said amount in favour of the complainant immediately in the presence of SFIO concerned, who shall monitor that the said amount is utilised by the complainant for the purpose of improvement and development of the temple. (vi) If the petitioners do not deposit the aforesaid amount of fine with the complainant of this case within the aforesaid period of one month, then they will have to serve the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Revision Partly allowed. *******