1) Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the applicant remained absent. Even on the earlier date, though bailable warrant came to be issued, none had remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly transpires that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, decided on 11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the present revision application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the applicant based on available material on record. However, it has come on notice that accused No.1 expired during pendency of revision application, hence, present application stands disposed of as abated qua applicant No.1.

2) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No.2422/2010, whereby, the trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 356 read with section 114 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 114 of the IPC, sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and also directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for both, which is confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2011 vide order dated 08.02.2012.

3) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.05.2010, the complainant Shushiladevi Gupta went for morning walk and in the return, while at about 08:00 a.m, when she was entering in her society, two persons came from opposite direction on the motorcycle and after few moments, both of them took turn came back to her and snatched her gold chain valued at Rs.45,000/- from her neck and fled away. The accused on suspicious being checked by the police at their rest house and on personal search, a chain and mangalsutra was recovered and initially, they had been arrested and thereafter, FIR came to lodged at Fatehganj Police Station, Vadodara being C.R.No.143/2010.

4) After concluding investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 356, 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be culminated into Criminal Case No.2422/2010.

5) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the ld. Court below have wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against applicants despite it emerges from the facts and circumstances of the present case that the evidence produced does not inspire confidence of the Court. Further, both the ld. Court below failed to appreciate that the independent witnesses qua the seizers of articles from the applicants has not supported the prosecution case and their presence are very much natural at the spot have also not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the applicants had been apprehended on 18/05/2010 i.e. after laps of 5 days after incident and therefore the possibility of culprits keep the muddamal till with them is quite unnatural. Both the Court below has fails to appreciate that while calling dummy peoples as admitted by P.W. No.9 he has not given any instruction to the person, who had been asked to bring dummies, also indicating that the Executive Magistrate had not taken proper care. It is submitted that the independent witnesses of the identification parade are also not supporting the prosecution case and they have categorically stated that their signature had been obtained on ready panchnama, this aspect is also ignored by both the Courts bellow.

6) Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed the present revision application and contended that after appreciating the evidence produced on record, learned trial Court has recorded the conviction which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, no interference of this Court is required. In such submissions, she has prayed to dismiss the preset revision application.

7) From the record, more particularly from conviction warrant, it appears that the set off is given from 26.05.2010 to 27.05.2011 in connection with the offence being C.R.No.143/2010 registered at Fatehganj Police Station, Vadodara, for the offence under Sections 379, 356 and 114 of the IPC. Thereafter the accused had undergone one month and 15 days imprisonment. Thus, the accused had served the sentence of total 1 year and 17 days.

8) The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, it appears that learned trial Court has already appreciated the facts and finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has properly assigned reasons and given the finding based on evidence led before him and hence also, no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.

9) It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 397/401 Cr.P.C vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.

10) Considering that the incident occurred in 2010, the conviction was recorded in 2011, and the revision application has been filed in 2012, there has been prolonged lapse of more than 15 years. Considering the lapse of time, surrounding circumstances and in view of the fact that the accused has already undergone 1 year and 15 days of imprisonment (including the period spent during investigation), the remaining sentence is hereby set off against the period already undergone.

11) In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application fails and stands dismissed. The bail and bail bond stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.