JUDGMENT
Farooq Hasan, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 24-10-79 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk in Cr. Appeal No. 40/77 by which he confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 2-3-1977.
2. In this case the petitioner was convicted under Section 380, IPC and sentenced to one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/’ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months R.I.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner without going into the merits of the case simply submitted that the accused-petitioner was convicted in the year 1977. He belongs to agricultural labour class and is of a poor standing. Learned counsel further submits that the accused petitioner be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Learned Public Prosecution on the other hand submitted that in this case the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should not be given to the accused petitioner because the offence against him is fully proved and his conviction should be maintained.
5. I have gone through the entire record of the case. I am of the opinion that there is convincing evidence against the accused and he has been rightly convicted by both the courts below. He has been convicted in the month of March, 1977 and has been sentenced to one year’s R.I. The offence against him is of theft and that too from the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. Looking to the nature of offence, I do not find it a fit case in which the petitioner be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. But because he was convicted in the month of March, 1977 it will be a great hardship to sent him jail. As is on bail for the last about 6 years by the order of this court. He was also on bail at the time of trial and appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk. He remained in custody for about one month and 5 days after the disposal of appeal and for 13 days during the course of investigation. In this way the accused-petitioners remained in custody for about one and half months. I, therefore, think it just and proper to reduce sentence of the accused-petitioner to the term already undergone by him. How ever, the amount of fine be enhanced to Rs. 300/-.
6. The revision petition is. the, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the term already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500/-In default of payment of fine he will undergo one months R.I. The accused petitioner is directed to deposit the fine within two months. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.