Revisional Court may set off remaining sentence against period already undergone considering prolonged lapse of time.

On May 13, 2010, the complainant was walking in Vadodara when two individuals on a motorcycle snatched her gold chain worth ₹45,000.

Five days later, the applicants were apprehended by police, and a chain/mangalsutra was recovered during a search.

The Trial Court (JMFC, Vadodara) convicted the applicants under Sections 356, 379, and 114 of the IPC, sentencing them to one and two years of simple imprisonment respectively.

This conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on February 8, 2012.

The applicants filed a revision before the High Court; however, Applicant No. 1 died during the pendency of the revision.

Applicant No. 2 had served a total of 1 year and 17 days of his sentence.

1. Whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse or suffered from a patent defect in law warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction?

2. Whether the sentence should be modified considering the lapse of 15 years and the period of imprisonment already undergone?

The court applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which define the scope of revisional jurisdiction as the power to correct patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or arbitrary exercises of discretion, rather than re-appreciating evidence unless findings are perverse.

It relied on Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) regarding proceeding in the absence of the applicant.

It further applied principles from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander Anr. (2012) regarding the limited scope of upsetting findings of fact.

Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022), which held that revisional courts should not dwell at length upon evidence to reverse findings unless they are totally perverse.

The High Court observed that despite the absence of the applicant's counsel, the matter could be decided based on available records.

Regarding the merits, the Court found no perversity or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the Trial Court’s reasoning.

While the applicant argued that independent witnesses did not support the seizure and identification parade, the Court held that findings of fact by lower courts are not to be substituted in a revision application if they are based on evidence.

However, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that the incident occurred in 2010 and the applicant had already served over a year of the sentence.

Given the 15-year lapse and the facts of the case, the Court found it equitable to adjust the sentence.

While the conviction was upheld, the Court ordered that the remaining sentence be set off against the period of 1 year and 15 days already undergone by the applicant.

The bail bonds were cancelled and the record was ordered to be sent back to the lower court.