- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. This revision has been filed by revisionist/applicants, Ram singh and Jagvir, against the judgment and order dated 4th May, 1983 passed by Sri M. A. Khan, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1983. dismissing the appeal of the revisionist and confirming the order and judgment dated 22nd January, 1983passcd by Sri Raj Singh, Additional Munsif, Etah, convicting the appellants/revisionists under Section 379, IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for a period of two years each.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Ram Autar Sharma lodged a First Information Report at the police station Patiali with the allegations that on 24-10-1981, when he got down from train at railway station Patiali in district Etah, he had a suit case and a blanket with him, which he kept on the platform and then came out with these belongings outside. He further alleged that keeping the belongings on the ground, he hardly walked a new steps to call a horse tanga, then saw that his belongings were taken away by the accused persons/revisionists. It is said that when he saw the accused persons taking away the belongings, ran and chased along with the witnesses but could not arrest the accused persons. On trial the accused persons were cpnvictcd and thereafter their appeal was dismissed and against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the revisionists. I have heard Sri G. S. Hajela, learned Counsel appearing for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A for the State. It is said that the occurrence is of 1981 and about 18 years have passed. It was stated by Sri Hajela that thereafter no case has been registered against the revisionists and they are innocent persons. With regard to this crime, it was alleged that the accused persons are of the village of complainant and they have implicated due to village enmity but looking to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he did not press the revision on merits. It was contended by Sri Hajela that although 18 years have passed, the revisionists are living in village peacefully and they have not committed any other crime, in these circumstances a lenient view may be taken in the matter. It was further contended that the revisionists have remained in custody for about 15 days each, no fruitful purpose shall be served by sending them jail after 18 years. Looking all these facts, it was pressed by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists may be sentenced for the period already undergone. I have con sidered this aspect of the case and looking the above facts I found that this is fit case and the sentence should be modified and I accordingly while dismissing the revision, direct that the revisionists are sentenced for the period already undergone and they shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand) each within a period of three months, failing which they shall undergo RI for two months each.
(3.) WITH the aforementioned observa tion, the revision is dismissed. A Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah for compliance. Revision dismissed. .;