MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J. - (1.) Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.71/2011 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 23.03.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Revdar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No.373/2009 whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence under Sections 420 and 508 IPC and sentenced as under : Offence Sentence Fine In default Sec. 420 IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 month S.I. Sec. 508 IPC 1 year R.I.. - - Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi by 22 villagers iner-alia alleging therein that about 2-3 months back, the accused-petitioners came to their village and told them that if they invest money, they can double the money in one month and triple in two months. The accused-petitioners also told that they are blessed by divine powers and with their divine powers after doing 'Anusthan' they can increase the money by four times, out of which one fourth share would be that of the accused-petitioners and remaining three fourth share would be of the person depositing the money. The accused-petitioners also threatened the complainants that if they don't deposit the money, 'Devi Maa' curse will destroy their family. Due to the fear of curse of 'Devi Maa', the complainants deposited a total sum of Rs.12,12,000/- with the accusedpetitioners. After some time, when the complainants demanded their money, then the accused-petitioners threatened them of dire consequences and fled from the village.
(2.) On this complaint, the police registered the case against the accused-petitioners and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 508 and 120B IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioners. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.03.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420 and 508 IPC as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.05.2011. Hence this revision petition against the conviction of the accused-petitioners.
(3.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2009 and the accusedpetitioners were arrested on 09.07.2009 and they were in judicial custody during whole trial and released only on 30.06.2011, thus they have so far suffered a sentence of about one year eleven months out of total sentence of three years for offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel further submits that for offence under Section 508 IPC, both the petitioners have already served the sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2009 and the accusedpetitioners were arrested on 09.07.2009 and they were in judicial custody during whole trial and released only on 30.06.2011, thus they have so far suffered a sentence of about one year eleven months out of total sentence of three years for offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel further submits that for offence under Section 508 IPC, both the petitioners have already served the sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.;