ORDER S.D. Khare, J. - This is an application in revision directed against an order dated 22nd August, 1963, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, dismissing an appeal filed by the present applicant against his conviction u/s 380 IPC and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that on the night between 26th and 27th July, 1962, a burglary was committed in the house of Pearey, a resident of Bahjoiya, within police circle Aonla by breaking open a hole in the wall of a room of his house. A report was lodged by Pearey the next morning at 6-30 a.m. giving the details of some of the property stolen. Before the investigating officer arrived a second list was prepared and handed over to him by the complainant. The present applicant was suspected. A search of his house was made and a sari, the details of which were mentioned in the second list, was recovered from a tin box from his house. It was later put up for identification in the presence of a Magistrate and was correctly identified by Pearey, his wife Smt. Gomti and one Gulfam none of whom committed any mistake. 3. Both the courts below have relied on the identification evidence and have further held that the dhoti or sari (Ex 1) was one of the items of the stolen property removed from the house of Pearey during the night between the 26th and 27th July, 1962. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Only two points were urged before me. The first point was that the second list dictated by Pearey had not been satisfactorily proved, because Pearey is illiterate and the scribe was not examined as a witness but only his affidavit was filed. The second contention was that the sentence awarded was severe. 5. In my opinion there is no force in any of these contentions. It is true that Pearey is illiterate but he could certainly prove the list which was written at his dictation and he did so when examined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate. The affidavit of the scribe was filed as a matter of abundant caution. Even without that affidavit or the evidence of the scribe it could be established from the testimony of Pearey that the list was prepared from his dictation. 6. The affidavit of the scribe was filed as a matter of abundant caution. Even without that affidavit or the evidence of the scribe it could be established from the testimony of Pearey that the list was prepared from his dictation. 6. The sentence awarded cannot be said to be severe. Burglary by house breaking, at night is a serious offence and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment for that offence cannot be said to be severe. 7. There is no force in this revision application and it is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He must surrender to his bail forthwith and serve out his sentence.