- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-1-96* passed by the XII Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra dismissing Crl. Appeal No. 60 of 1994 and confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant by the Magistrate concerned under Section 457and380,i. P. C.
(2.) THE applicant is said to have committed the offences under Section 457 and 380 I. P. C. in respect of the incident which took place in the night of 15/16-9-89 and the applicant was arrested while he was running after committing the offences. THE Court below have given cogent reasons for convicting him under Section 457 and 380 I. P. C. The learned counsel for the applicant has questioned the quantum of the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court. The IX A. C. J. M. Agra held the applicant guilty under 457, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200. In default of payment of fine the applicant was directed to undergo S. I. for a further period of one month. The applicant was also sentenced to undergo R. L for a period of two years under Section 380, I. P. C. and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months S. I. has been awarded. The above order of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned Magistrate on 7-2-94. The office has pointed out that the date 7-2-96 of XII Addl. Sessions Judge has been wrongly transcribed in order in place of 29-1-96 due to inadvertence. . It may be corrected. Accordingly the order is corrected as per order of Hon'ble Mr. Kundan Singh, J. dated 14-5-1997. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on appeal confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate confirming the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Magistrate.
(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that no doubt the applicant is said to have been arrested while running from the place of incident which took place between the night of 15/16-9-89. THE applicant has been in jail for more than nine months and has suffered a lot of mental agony. THEre is no bad antecedents against him. It would not be proper to send him again behind the bars after a period of seventeen years. I have given by anxious thought to the submission made on behalf of the applicants. The applicant has remained in jail for more than nine months and he suffered a lot of mental agony during the pendency of the case since 1994. The learned State Counsel could not point out any bad antecedents against the applicant. In my view it would not be proper to relegate him behind the bars after a period of about 17 years. The period already suffered would serve the ends of justice.;