JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-petitioner Jagatpal was convicted by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar under section 394, I. P. C. and was sentenced to one years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 1, 000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under go 3 months like imprisonment. He went up in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, who vide his judgment dated February 9, 1983 maintained his conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that P. W. 7 Bhanwar was working in the field of Nanuman Bishnoi situated in 11 T.K. On 2.5.1979, at about 2 p.m. the accused went to him and demanded a sum of Rs. 20/-. He addressed abuses to Banwari (P.W. 7) and felled him down. P. W. 7 Banwari had a purse in his pocket. The accused forcibly took away that purse and went away. It was also alleged that the accused had given beating to P. W. 7 Banwari. A report of the occurrence was lodged at about 5.30 p.m. on the same day at police station, Raisinghnagar. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The accused was arrested on 2. 5 79 and in consequence of the information furnished by him whilst under custody, the stolen bag containing the currency note of Rs. 300/- was recovered from the Almira lying in his house. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. The learned Magistrate framed a charge under sec. 394, IPC against the accused. He denied the charge and faced the trial. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate held the charge established against the accused. He was consequently convicted and sentenced and his appeal was dismissed as mentioned above. 3. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused and the Public Prosecutor. 4. Keeping in view, the preponderance of evidence on record and concurrent finding of the courts-below the learned Amicus Curiae thought it proper and rightly in my opinion, not to challenge the conviction of the accused. The only point, which has been pressed before me is that the sentence imposed on the accused is heavy and harsh. If was argued that the accused is a poor cultivator by profession. The only point, which has been pressed before me is that the sentence imposed on the accused is heavy and harsh. If was argued that the accused is a poor cultivator by profession. No previous conviction stands at his discredit. He has been in custody for more than six months, as such a lenient view in the matter of sentence should be adopted. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the accused remained in custody from 2.5.79 to 29.5.79 and thereafter, he is in custody since 2.2.83 till today. It amounts to 6 months and 4 days in total. He was a young man nearly 25 years of age, at the time of commission of offence vide arrest memo Ex. P/3 in these circumstances it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period already under gone by him. 6. In the result, the revision petition of accused Jagatpal is partly allowed. His conviction under section 394, IPC, is maintained, but the sentence of one year is reduced to the period already under gone by him. The sentence of fine is set aside. He is in jail and shall be forthwith set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******