JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5.1.80 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar whereby he upheld the judgment dated 6.10.78 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar convicting the petitioner under Section 411, IPC and sentencing him to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that a report was lodged by one Amin Karigar at P.S Losal on 9.2.75 wherein it was stated that a theft was committed in his house. On this report a case was registered, and the petitioner was arrested. On the basis of information u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, some of the stolen property was recovered at his instance. After completing the investigation, the challan was filed. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing arguments of the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 457 and 380, IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court an appeal was filed. On that appeal the learned Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty under Section 411, IPC and not under Section 457 and 380, IPC. Hence this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner. The evidence has been wrongly appreciated by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. Learned counsel further submitted that if looking to the concurrent finding of fact of the courts below this court cannot interfere, then the petitioner should be given the benefit of probation or his sentence be reduced, because the sentence passed against him is excessive. 5. Learned P. P. on the other hand contention that the case is fully proved against the petitioner and interference at the stage of revision is not possible where there is a concurrent finding of the courts below. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the articles recovered were identified by the complainant and his brother Bundu in the test identification on 29.5.75. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence at length. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the articles recovered were identified by the complainant and his brother Bundu in the test identification on 29.5.75. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence at length. As a general rule the High Court will not inter fere with a finding of fact and this is specially so in the case of a concurrent finding of the courts below. It would be futile for the legislature to grant a right of appeal in some cases and withhold the same in others. If the High Court under the guise of revision were to allow conclusion of fact based on evidence to be canvassed and attacked on the footing of an appeal the Court of revision will not, therefore, decide between the two conflicting sets of witnesses or two conflicting issues of the facts. Interference at the stage of revision is only possible if it is found that the finding if allowed to stand would result in a failure of justice, or there is a manifest illegality in the procedure or where the finding has been arrived at contrary to the well established principles of law. As discussed earlier, both the courts below have seriously scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution. The complainant has given a list of stolen property. The property recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner was subsequently identified by the complainant and his brother. Therefore, it is not possible for this court to interfere in the judgment passed by the courts below. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the judgments of the courts below. 7. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner should be given the benefit of probation, because the co-accused has been extended the benefit of probation by the appellate court and the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable. From a perusal of the judgment of the appellate court it is clear that the co-accused who has been extended the benefit of probation was about 72 years of age and there was nothing on record to show that the co-accused was a previous convict or that he was not having a good character. But for the present petitioner there are no such grounds. But for the present petitioner there are no such grounds. On 20-1-86 at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner a report was called for from the concerned police station about the antecedents of the petitioner. The report dated 28-1-86 has been received in this court, wherein it has been reported that the character of the petitioner is not good and he is a habitual offender. Because of this report and the age of the petitioner the case of the present petitioner is quite distinguishable from the co-accused, who was given the benefit of probation. Hence I reject the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for extending the benefit of probation. 8. It was lastly prayed by the learned counsel that the sentence passed against the petitioner is excessive. Under Sec 411. IPC the maximum punishment is three years and the accused-petitioner has been sentenced to two years R. I. 9. The report was lodged in the year 1975 and the accused-petitioner was arrested in the year 1975. Since then the cause is sub judice. Most of the stolen property was recovered at the instance of Moti co-accused, who has been given the benefit of probation. Looking to the long pendency of the case and the nature of the accusation against the petitioner. I think it just and proper that the sentence of the petitioner be reduced, because the same is excessive. If he is sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs 200/-, I think the ends of justice will be met. 10. Accordingly the revision petition is partly allowed. The sentence of the accused-petitioner is reduced from 2 year's to one years R.I. and the sentence of fine is maintained. He is on bail. The trial court is directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner in order to serve out the sentence. The bail bonds are cancelled.Petition partly allowed. *******