G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is preferred against the judg-ment of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 16th Nov. , '88, by which, the appeal of the petitioner was partly accepted and his sentence of 2 years' rigorous impri-sonment was reduced to that of 1 year. However, the amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment thereof, awarded by the trial court, were maintained.
(2.) THE accused was caught while snatching away a gold-chain from the neck of Shantidevi, mother of complainant Suresh. After completing usual investigation, he was challaned u/s. 392, IPC. The learned trial court, after completing the trial, found that the case was made out against the accused-petitioner, and sentenced him to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, for offence u/s. 392, IPC. In the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the incident had taken place on 11th Oct. , '76. The accused was on bail during the trial of the case, who, however remained in jail for 15 days only. After the judgment of the trial court, the accused was arrested on 16th Nov. , '88, and at present, is in jail. According to him, the' petitioner has already been in jail for more than I month. He did not argue the case on merits, but only prayed that looking to the age of the accused when the offence was committed by him and the period when it was committed, it is a case where a lenient view may be taken. He also argued that during these 12 years of period, there is no complaint against the petitioner for committing any offence, and he lived as a good citizen. In this context, he relied on the case of Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab (1 ). In that case, the High Court had convicted the appellant u/s. 326, IPC, and taking a lenient view that the appellant was a government servant and looking to the fact that the incident had occurred some 13 years back, it was not. found desirable to sent the appellant back to jail, and his sentence was reduced from 1 year's RI to till rising of the court, but, an amount of fine was imposed. In the present case also, the offence was committed by the petitioner when he was 25 years of age. He faced the trial for 12 years, and during these 12 years, no further complaint has been received about his conduct and character. At present, the petitioner is doing some private business and maintaining his family. It would be a great hardship on him as well as on his family and unfair also if he is sent back to jail after 12 years of the incident. No doubt, the offence was committed by him, but, his conduct during these 12 years shows that it is a fit case where a lenient view should be taken. Therefore, sending him back to jail after 12 years, would not be desirable. He has already been in jail for 1 month. If this period of his sentence of imprisonment is maintained with enhancement in the fine, that would, in my view, would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner u/s. 392, IPC is maintained, and he is awarded the sentence of imprisonment which he has already undergone, and a fine of Rs. 2, 000/-, In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. The amount of fine be deposited by him within a period of 2 months from today. He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. . ;