JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 71/2014 by learned Addl. Session Judge, No. 3, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasmi in Regular Criminal Case No. 117/2011, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under: Offence under section 392 IPC Three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2011 complainant Smt. Kali submitted a report before PS Rasmi inter-alia alleging therein that today at about 5:30 PM, when she was returning home, two persons came on a motorcycle and snatched her golden nose-ring and ran away. On this report, Police registered a case against unknown persons for offence under Section 392 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, the petitioners were arrested by the Police. 3. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 394 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined in defence. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 09.07.2013 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC instead of Section 394 IPC. 6. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2015. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated 07.12.2023 received from the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur in which it has been mentioned that petitioner No. 1 Madhu Lal has been released from jail on 18.09.2017 on completion of his sentence. The said report is hereby taken on record. 8. Since the petitioner No. 1 has already been released from jail after serving the sentence, the present revision petition is dismissed qua petitioner No. 1 Madhu Lal. 9. The said report is hereby taken on record. 8. Since the petitioner No. 1 has already been released from jail after serving the sentence, the present revision petition is dismissed qua petitioner No. 1 Madhu Lal. 9. So far as accused-petitioner No. 2-Rataniya @ Kamadiya is concerned, at the threshold, learned counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2011 and out of total sentence of three years' R.I., the accused petitioner No. 2 has already served thirteen months of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner No. 2 for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 11. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 12. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2011 and the petitioner No. 2 has so far undergone a period of thirteen months in custody, out of three years of total sentence, so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner No. 2 has remained behind the bars for thirteen months, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 392 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner No. 2. 13. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner No. 2's conviction for offence under Section 392 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the courts below is also waived. The petitioner No. 2 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 14. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.