JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 9th December, 1980 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant u/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code . 2. The facts giving rise to this revision can briefy be stated as under: On 22nd February, 1978 Sri Gopal Das Agrawal Junior Engineer went to village Siriya Ki Nagariya to check theft of electricity as he had received some reports in that connection. Sri Gopal Das Agrawal reached the house of the applicant in village Siriya Ki Nagariya at about 12 O'clock noon and found that the electricity was being abstracted in his house. The applicant was himself present at the house. Sri Gopal Das Agrawal took in possession the electric wire etc. which were being used for abstracting the energy and lodged the report in that connection at P.S. Raya. In due course a charge sheet was submitted for the prosecution of the applicant for the offences u/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code . 3. The applicant denied the prosecution case. 4. The trial court however on a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was made out beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the applicant and sentenced him to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against it he filed an appeal in the court of Session which resulted in dismissal and hence this revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant in the first instance urged before me the, besides the applicant, his father also lived in the same house and that, even if it be assumed that the energy was being abstracted, the possibility of the applicant's father doing so cannot be ruled out. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that in any case the applicant could not be singled out abstracting the energy. I have given my careful thought but I regret my inability to accept the same. 6. Sri Gopal Das Agrawal PW 3 and Janak Singh SI (PW 4) consistently stated that the applicant was personally present at the house when they reached there and found the energy being abstracted. I have given my careful thought but I regret my inability to accept the same. 6. Sri Gopal Das Agrawal PW 3 and Janak Singh SI (PW 4) consistently stated that the applicant was personally present at the house when they reached there and found the energy being abstracted. According to them a cable was put on the pole and it was from there that the energy was being abstracted through the cable running from the pole upto the applicant's house, it was put not to either of the two witnesses that there were any other male members living in the house at that time. Consequently, it is not open to the applicant to contend now in the present revision that the applicant could not be held responsible for abstracting the energy because the possibility of his father doing so cannot be ruled out. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that two of the witnesses namely Nem Singh (PW 1) and Kehari Singh (PW 3) stated that the applicant was not present at the house when the raiding party reached there. I cannot, however, ignore the fact that these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. Consequently, the mere fact that they said that the applicant was not present cannot be of much consequence. It is worthy of notice in this connection that the memo Ex. Ka. 5, which was prepared on the spot also indicates that the applicant was present when the raiding party reached there and detected the commission of offence. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant next urged that in any case one of the witnesses, namely, Janak Singh admitted that he did not know the applicant from before. Learned Counsel pointed out that the applicant was neither arrested on the spot nor he was put up for identification and, consequeutly, the ipse dixit of the prosecution witness of identifying the applicant in court will not be a safe basis for convicting the applicant. I am once again unable to agree. It is true that Janak Singh enforcement inspector deposed that he did not know the applicant from before. It was presumably for the reason that even at that time the said inspector was not permanently posted in Mathura district but was posted at Agra as is apparent from his testimony. Sri Gopal Das Agrawal (PW 2) was however, posted in Mathura at that time. It was presumably for the reason that even at that time the said inspector was not permanently posted in Mathura district but was posted at Agra as is apparent from his testimony. Sri Gopal Das Agrawal (PW 2) was however, posted in Mathura at that time. He made a categorical statement to the effect that the applicant was present at the house when the commission of the offence was detected. No cross-examination was made with him to show that he did not know Gyanendra Singh applicant from before. Under these circumstances the mere fact that Jank Singh did not know the applicant from before cannot be a ground for rejecting the prosecution case now in revision. In my opinion on the evidence of Gopal Das Agrawal and Janak Singh P Ws it was made out beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was abstracting energy from the pole and he thereby committed an offence u/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code . 9. Coming to the question of sentence, learned Counsel has filed an affidavit before me where in it has been sworn that the applicant is an young man of about 23 years of age and has already passed his M. A. previous. It has also been sworn that the applicant is not a previous convict. On this basis it was urged by the learned Counsel that it will not be porper in the interest of justice to send the applicant to jail again. Learned Counsel has urged that the applicant may be let off with the sentence of imprisonment already undergone together with some sentence of fine. 10. On a perusal of the record I find that the appeal filed in the lower appellate court was dismissed on 9th December, 1980 and the present revision was filed on 16th December, 1980 and it was on that date that the applicant was granted bail. It thus transpires that the applicant had already undergone a sentence of imprisonment for over a week before he was released in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. The applicant was examined in the trial court on 2nd August, 1978 and he then gave out his age as 23 years. It thus transpires that the applicant had already undergone a sentence of imprisonment for over a week before he was released in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. The applicant was examined in the trial court on 2nd August, 1978 and he then gave out his age as 23 years. It cannot, therefore, be gain-said that the applicant is a young and educated boy and that if he is again sent to jail the possibility of his mixing with the hardened criminal cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone together with a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/-. 11. This revision is, therefore, allowed to this extent that while conviction recorded against the applicant u/s 39 Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code is affirmed, the sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment awarded thereunder is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone together with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo three months' further rigorous imprisonment. He is granted six weeks time from the date of the receipt of the record in trial court to deposit the fine. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bonds furnished by him stand discharged. Ordered accordingly.