Order This revision is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry under section 379, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1/2 years 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4th December, 1981 at 19.30 hours at the junction of Rangapillai Street and Mission Street, Pondicherry, while P.W. 1 and his wife P.W. 2 were proceeding to Anakula Vinayagar Temple, the petitioner came behind on a cycle and snatched the necklace from the neck of P.W. 2. Since P.W. 2 resisted with her hand, one portion of the necklace alone was taken by the petitioner and the another portion was remained in the hand of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 chased the petitioner with the help of people nearby, caught hold of the petitioner and took him to the police station. Nothing was seized from the petitioner at that time. P.W. 2 produced the portion of the necklace remained in his hand and it was marked as O. 1. P.W. 3, a rickshaw-puller produced the dollar of the necklace (S.C. 2) at 18-00 hours on the same day representing that it was found lying on the road side at the junction of Mission Street. To prove the charge against the petitioner, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses, filed three exhibits and marked…1 and 2. 3. The petitioner when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code denied the evidence of the prosecution and contended that when he was going on a cycle in the Vaikkal Street, a person coming from the opposite direction dashed against him, as a result of which he fell down and at that time, P.W. 1 and other people came there and caught hold of him. 4. Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of the prosecution and petitioner guilty of the offence for which he was charged and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that both the Courts below have erred in accepting the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and convicting the petitioner, that the non-examination of the independent witness, who is alleged to have chased the petitioner is fatal to the prosecution and that the evidence of P.Ws. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that both the Courts below have erred in accepting the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and convicting the petitioner, that the non-examination of the independent witness, who is alleged to have chased the petitioner is fatal to the prosecution and that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is artificial and unbelievable and hence, the conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable. 6. I have carefully considered the concurrent findings of both he courts below and the evidence on record in the light of the criticisms levelled against the prosecution by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel. In the instant case, the petitioner was chased and caught red-handed and produced before the police and a report was given immediately along with the portion of the jewel torn to the police. The other portion of the jewel was produced by P.W. No. 3. P.W. 4 has attested the complaint as well as the mahazar. P.W. 4 was not even cross-examined and his evidence was not even challenged. The evidence of P.W. 3 was also not disputed with reference to his production of the portion of the jewel (M.O. 2). Except the fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife, there is absolutely nothing in their evidence to discredit their testimony. As observed by the Courts below, their evidence in cogent and convincing and there was no motive for them to foist the case against the petitioner by leaving the real culprit. The non-examination of the passers-by, who have also joined P.W. 2 at the time of chase and caught hold of the petitioner and later left the place will not in any way affect the prosecution case and both the courts below have assigned convincing reasons to repel the said contention. 7. As observed by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration1 the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appraisal of evidence. 7. As observed by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration1 the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court also in State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and others2 while dealing with the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of revisional power has observed as follows: “Although the revisional power of the High Court under section 439 read with section 435 is as wide as the power of the Court of Appeal under section 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice”. 8. In the instant case, neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has committed any error on fact or of law in arriving at the conclusions and I do not find any defect in the procedure or any perversity or manifest illegality in the concurrent findings of both the courts below. Hence, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner. 9. Lastly, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner is the first offender, that he is about 27 years and nothing was recovered from him and major portion of the jewel was recovered from P.W. Nos. 2 and 3, that he had been in jail from 11th August, 1983 and that, in any event, the sentence of 1/2 years Rigorous Imprison mentis unduly severe and excessive, and hence, he may be dealt with leniently. 10. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I feel that the order of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of nine months Rigorous Imprisonment. 11. With the above modification in sentence, this revision is dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Revision dismissed sentence reduced.