N.M. Kasliwal, J.
1. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, dated 17th January, 1984, confirming the sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur, convicting the accused Under Section 379 IPC and to a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner first contended that the petitioner could not have been given an enhanced sentence under Section 75 IPC in as much as he was not sentenced earlier to a term of imprisonment for 3 years or upwards. It was submitted that the petitioner was only sentenced to a term of two months in 1970, again for two months in 1970, then again for two months in 1972 and for one year in 1974. It was thus contended that of none of these sentence for a term of three years and up-wards and ae such Section 75 could not have been applied in this case. There is complete fallacy in the above contention Section 75, which deals with enhanced punishment for certain offences in Chapter XII or Chapter XVII provides that however having been convicted by a court in India of an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of this Code with imprisonment of either description three years or upwards shall be guilty of an offence punishable either of those Chapters with like imprisonment with like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. In the present case the petitioner was convicted under Section 379 (PC in 1967 and was released on probation. In 1970 he was convicted in case No. 286/- under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to two months imprisonment. In 1971 he was again convicted under Section 379 IPC in case No. 117/70 sentenced to two months imprisonment. In 1972, the petitioner was again convicted under Section 379 IPC in case No. 186/1972, and sentenced to two months imprisonment. Lastly, the petitioner was convicted under Section 379 IPC in case No. 443/1973 and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The petitioner had admitted all the above convictions and sentences and even before this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to refute anyone of the above convictions or sentences awarded to the petitioner. Section 75 does not state that the accused should have been sentenced with imprisonment of either description for period of 3 years or upwards but only lays down that an accused, who has been convicted for an offence punishable under Chapter XVII with imprisonment of either description for a period of three years or upwards. Thus, it is not necessary that the accused should have been sentenced previously foe a term of 3 years or upwards but only requirement is that he should be convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term of 3 years or upwards. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charge under Section. 75 IPC was not properly framed norany documents were placed on record to show the previous conviction & sentence of the petitioner. I see no force in this contention. The learned trial Court while considering the case of sentence has cleary mentioned that a charge under Section 75 IPC had been framed against the petitioner and as he had admitted the charge levelled against him as such the accused was considered habitual offender and was awarded a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. It may also be mentioned that in appeal no ground was raised by the petitioner regarding any irregularity in the charge. That apart the petitioner has admitted all his previous convictions and sentences and even now before this Court it has not been contended that anyone of the above mentioned convictions or sentences awarded to the petitioner, were wrong.
3. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a lenient view in the matter of awarding of sentence should be taken by this Court as the matter relates to a pick-pocketing of Rs. 15/-only and there was no case in which the petitioner was charged or convicted between 1974, which was his last conviction and the present incident, which is alleged to be of 1980. I see no force in this contention as well. The above mentioned history of the petitioner and his previous convictions and sentences shows that he is a habitual offender and inspite of sentences awarded to him three times of two months and one year still he did not correct himself. The offence under Section 379 IPC itself is punishment for an imprisoment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. When Section 75 is applied then such terms can extend upto imprisonment for life or to an imprisonment upto 10 year. In the present case taking in View the entire facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court itself has awarded a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment inspite of applying Section 75 and as such there is hardly any ground or justification to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence.
4. The revision is accordingly dismissed.