JUDGMENT V.N. Varma, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated 20th March, 1974 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant u/s 3 Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 2. In May, 1972 the applicant was employed as a worker in the North-Eastern Railway Paint Shop at Gorakhpur. The standing orders were that no worker could go in and come out of the said paint shop with any personal property except on a gate pass. The workers coming out of the paint shop through its various gates were checked by men of the Railway Protection Force. On 13--5--1972 Rakshak Ram Dhani Tripathi (PW 2) was on checking duty at paint shop gate No. 1. On that day at about 12.15 p. m., the applicant came out of this gate pushing Rakshak Ram Dhani Tripathi and tried to escape. Ram Dhani Tripathi, however, caught hold of him and called Sub-Inspector P. Ekka. In the presence of Sub-Inspector Ekka, other Rakshaks and Satyabrat Pandey, another employee of the work shop, Rakshak Ram Dhani Tripathi searched the applicant and recovered from his possession two pieces of (sic) Union Nuts (Exts. 1 and 2) and twentynine pieces of brass bushing (Exts. 3 to 33). They were kept tied is a bundle and that bundle was concealed inside his Dhoti between his thighs. The things recovered were sealed at the spot and a case was registered against the applicant on the same day. After some time, those things were examined by D.S. Pandey, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, N.E. Railway and they were found to be railway property. After investigation the applicant was sent up to stand his trial u/s 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations made against him. He attributed his false implication due to enmity with Sub-Inspector P. Ekka. 4. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case proved and he, therefore, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The applicant went up in appeal but in vain. Aggrieved, he has come up in revision to this Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant did not press this revision before me on merits. He addressed me on the question of sentence only. The applicant went up in appeal but in vain. Aggrieved, he has come up in revision to this Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant did not press this revision before me on merits. He addressed me on the question of sentence only. His contention is that the articles recovered from the possession of the applicant were not worth more than a few rupees and it was, therefore, not a case in which he should have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. I think, there is some force in this contention of the learned Counsel. Undoubtedly, the things recovered from the possession of the applicant were not of much value. Besides, I find that this incident had taken place in the year 1972. After a lapse of five years no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to jail again. In jail he will mix up with hardened criminals and will learn their habits. After release from jail he would become a greater menace to the society. The record shows that he has already remained in jail for a little more than one and a half months. I think he has been sufficiently punished for what he had done. Further he will also lose his service. This is an additional punishment which he will have to suffer. Considering all these facts, I think the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. 6. In the result, I dismiss this revision but with the modification that the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to them.