S. S. SHARMA, J, J. ( 1 ) CHIEF Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhatarpur in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1324 of 1981 by a judgment dated 10. 11. 1982 convicted the applicant under section 392 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R. T. for one year. Against that conviction and sentence this applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur who by his judgment dated 23. 6. 1983 set aside the conviction under section 392 Indian Penal Code and instead convicted him under section 411 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) HENCE the applicant has filed the present revision. From the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge it appears that the other co-accused Fulwa had not preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This case had been listed for admission. On that day Shri A. Usmani who had appeared for the applicant contended that the only question which he seeks to raise in this revision would be that of the sentence. According to him the applicant has in all undergone about 5 months sentence prior to his release in pursuance of the order dated 11. 7. 1983 which period includes even the period of his being in custody, which he is entitled to set off under section 428 Criminal Procedure Code. In view of this the revision was admitted. The learned Govt. Advocate was also heard. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that on or about 2. 4. 1981 Munia (P. W. 1) was returning from the village Budrak along with Mst Mallibai to her own village. On the way near Khariyahar two culprits way laid them and robbed them of the ornaments. A report about this incident was lodged in the Police Station and during investigation the applicant and another accused were arrested. ( 4 ) ON an information given by applicant Devideen a gold Pungariya article B was seized from Ramlal (P. W. 3) with whom applicant Devideen bad pledged that article. This Pungariya bas been identified by Munia (P. W. 1) as belonging to her. Ramlal (P. W. 3) knew applicant Devideen from before. He has also proved entry Ex. P/i with regard to the pledge. The evidence of Chhiddu (P. W. 6) and Gaphoor (P. W. 8) have proved the information and the seizure of the said Pungariya. This Pungariya bas been identified by Munia (P. W. 1) as belonging to her. Ramlal (P. W. 3) knew applicant Devideen from before. He has also proved entry Ex. P/i with regard to the pledge. The evidence of Chhiddu (P. W. 6) and Gaphoor (P. W. 8) have proved the information and the seizure of the said Pungariya. The evidence which is quite consistent has been accepted by the two courts below. The findings in that behalf are quite justified from the material on record. It has not even been challenged by the learned counsel for the applicant. ( 5 ) THE applicant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge on 23. 6. 1983 and as the order of the court below indicate he was taken in custody on the same day and was sent to jail to undergo the sentence. The bail order was passed by this court in the present revision on 11. 7. 1983. Besides this the applicant had been in custody, during investigation as also for some period during trial, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Govt. Advocate from the record verified and stated that the total period of custody and which the applicant is entitled to set off under section all Criminal Procedure Code and the sentence comes to about 5 months. This is an admitted fact. Thus, the sentence of this period has been undergone out of the total period of six months awarded to the applicant. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant may be entitled to some period of remission and he having been bailed out it may not be expedient to send him back to jail to undergo the remaining short period of imprisonment. It is not clear whether the applicant would be entitled to any remission or not but the fact remains that the applicant in any event would have at the most a month's period to undergo out of the sentence awarded to him. In the circumstances the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period undergone. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant as awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld but the sentence is reduced to the period undergone. The bail bonds of the applicant shall stand discharged and he need not surrender to them. Revision partly allowed. .