- (1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 5.12.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Cr. Appeal No. 2/2002, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 11.12.2001 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar in Cr. Case No. 6/1994, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Secs. 498A IPC as under, has been affirmed: "Under Section 498A IPC: To undergo 1 year's RI with fine of Rs. 250/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI." Brief facts of the case are as under:-- "On 14.10.1993, on the basis of written report of complainant Smt. Dropdi, the police registered a case for the offence under Section 498A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused petitioner before the trial Court. The charges were framed against the accused petitioner by the trial court and the same were readover to him. The accused petitioner denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined its witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 CrP.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court passed the judgment dated 11.12.2001 convicting and sentencing the petitioner, as indicated above. Against the said judgment dated 11.12.2001 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, but the appellate court vide judgment dated 5.12.2002 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court."
(2.) Hence, this Cr. Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.
(3.) Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact the matter pertains to the year 1993 which is about 21 years ago from today approximately, the accused petitioner has remained in confinement for about 53 days; the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, having a large family dependent upon him; and he is not the habitual offender; either he should be given the benefit of probation and if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.;