JUDGMENT 1. - The prosecution story in a nut shell is that on the night intervening July 9 and 10, 1971 the accused petitioners trespassed the house of Heera. They deprived Mst. Surji P.W. 8 of a 'Borla' which she was wearing on her head. A first information report of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Khandela on July 10, 1971. The Police after usual investigation submitted a challan in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana and ultimately the three petitioners were tried by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Sikar. 2. The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the statements of PW 1 Heera, PW 2 Phoola, PW 3 Bhagwana. PW 4 Kajod and PW 8 Mst. Surji convicted the accused-petitioners under section 392 I.P.C. and sentenced them to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each. In default of the payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. The aggrieved accused went up in appeal, which met with no success. Hence this revision. 4. Keeping in view the fact that the five witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have made a consistent statement connecting the accused with the crime and that two of the accused were caught on the spot, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has rightly conceded that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the fact of participation of the three accused in the crime for which they have been convicted. However, I have looked into the record. The prosecution by preponderance of evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-petitioners. The statements of the eye-witnesses stand amply corroborated by the circumstantial evidence as well as the first information report. 5. The occurrence is of the year 1971 and the value of the stolen property is Rs. 5/- only as held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused have been attending the Court for last so many years. It is true that the lapse of a period of about six years between the date of the commission of the crime and the hearing of the revision petition is a relevant consideration for reduction of the sentence. The lasting of criminal proceeding for six years not only causes mental worry but it also means considerable expense. It is true that the lapse of a period of about six years between the date of the commission of the crime and the hearing of the revision petition is a relevant consideration for reduction of the sentence. The lasting of criminal proceeding for six years not only causes mental worry but it also means considerable expense. The hanging of damoclean sword on the head of the accused and the prolonged uncertainty of the result of the case is bound to affect the continuity of life. Taking, a conspectus of the circumstances of the case, I consider to be in interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners. 6. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the accused-petitioners under Section 392 IPC is held up However, the sentence awarded to them is reduced from six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of the payment of which each of them shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 7. With the above modification in the term of sentence the revision is dismissed. 8. It is, however, made clear that the accused-petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the period of detention undergone by them during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by the Court.Revision partly allowed. *******