V. P. MATHUR, J,, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 16/6/1987 by the then II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh who was disposing of Criminal Appeal. No. 68 of 1985 which itself arose out of a judgment and order passed Sri 21/3/1985 by Sri B. P. Mathur, the then lind Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1155 of 1982. The learned Magistrate had convicted the revisionist under section 411 I. P. C. and sentenced him to 11 months R. I. The learned Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 16/6/1987 upheld the conviction and affirmed the sentence, hence this revision. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, stated the facts of the case are that a she-buffalo with its calf, tied out side the house of Sohan Pal complainant in village Petra, P. S. Dadon, district Aligarh, was stolen by some body during the night between 2nd and 3rd January. 1979. In the morning on 3/1/1979 the first informant Sohan Pal along with his cousin brother Mahendra Singh started for the search of the she-buffalo and the calf. At about 11. 30 in the morning on 3/1/1979 when they reached near the canal of village Gurguri, they saw from a distance two persons leading the she-buffalo and the calf. The two persons were promptly apprehended after infliction of some injuries. They happened to be the present revisionist and one Kitab Singh. It is also in evidence that Kitab Singh left the chain with which the she-buffalo was led on seeing these two persons and tried to run away. A number of village people came on the spot and the two accused persons were taken into custody and broughtto the Thana where an F. I. R. was lodged. ( 3 ) TWO witnesses, who deposed in support of the prosecution version, were Sohan Pal and his cousin brother Mahendra Singh. Sohan Pal was examined as P. W. 1 and Mahendra Singh along with P. W. 4 Faizul Hasan identified the she-buffalo as the cattle belonging to Sohan Pal. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the accused persons the simple allegation was that they had been falsely implicated. They did not claim the she-buffalo and its calf as their own. Sohan Pal was examined as P. W. 1 and Mahendra Singh along with P. W. 4 Faizul Hasan identified the she-buffalo as the cattle belonging to Sohan Pal. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the accused persons the simple allegation was that they had been falsely implicated. They did not claim the she-buffalo and its calf as their own. The statements of Sohan Pal and Mahenhra Singh read in the light of the evidence given by Pratap Singh and Faizul Hasan were sufficient to prove that the she-buffalo and calf in question belonged to Sohan. Pal and they were stolen during the night between the 2nd and 3rd January 1979 and that the same were recovered from the possession of Gaj Raj, the present revisionist and co-accused Kitab Singh. ( 5 ) THE law is that when recovery follows immediately after the occurrence of theft, a presumption can be raised that those from whom recovery is made committed the theft. Inspite of this the two courts below took a lenient view of the matter and found the revisionist guilty under section 411 I. P. C. and sentenced him to 11 months R. I. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel, who has argued this revision before me, has contended that before both the courts below a plea was taken that this being the first offence of the revisionist, he may be granted the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act. The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, has upheld the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate for awarding 11 months R. I to the revisionist and has also noted that in a case under section 411, I. P. C. sentence of imprisonment cannot be treated to be excessive. The occurrence took place in the year 1919 and this revision is being disposed of after more than 7 years. Learned counsel says that if his client is sentenced to fine in addition to sentence of imprisonment already undergone, it will not be treated as an enhancement of sentence. He also argues that after all this time that the revisionist has been on bail if he is sent back to Jail to serve out his sentence of 11 months R. I, it will be a little harsh. He also argues that after all this time that the revisionist has been on bail if he is sent back to Jail to serve out his sentence of 11 months R. I, it will be a little harsh. ( 7 ) IN the result the conviction of the revisionist under section 411, I. P. C. is upheld and maintained but the sentence is reduced to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 700. 00 This amount should be deposited in the court below within a period of two monthst from today. In default of the payment of fine, the revisionist shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. --- ***