JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby he has maintained the conviction of the accused-petitioner Sukhdeo Singh under Section 411 Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur vide his order dated 28-10-1976. The sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of P13BXj 50/-was reduced to 6 month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that on the night intervening 9th and 10th June, 1973, the accused petitioner committed the house breaking in the house of one Gurudeo Singh and committed theft of certain cash and ornaments. A case under Section 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused-petitioner and after usual investigation, the case against the accused was challaned in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Shri Karanpur, who held him guilty or the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appeal met the same fate, as mentioned above. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard Mr. M.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record, of the case. 4. Mr. M.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the accused-under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. He has, however submitted that the occurrence is dated 10th June, 1973, i.e. almost 14 years old. The accused has remained in custody for 21 days during investigation and trial where as he has remained in custody for 70 days after his appeal was decided by the learned Sessions Judge and before he was released under the orders of this Court. In all, he has remained in custody for 91 days. Looking to the nature of the offence and the fact that he has been facing trial for the post about 14 years, a lenient view, so far as the sentence is concerned, is called for, Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the submission. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I propose to take a lenient view so far as the sentence is concerned. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the submission. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I propose to take a lenient view so far as the sentence is concerned. 6. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the conviction of the accused-petitioner Sukhdeo Singh under Section 411 Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, his sentence of 6 month's rigorous imprisonment recorded by the learned Addl Sessions Judge is reduced to the period of his custody. The amount of fine as ordered by the learned Addl Sessions Judge is also maintained. It has been ordered that in default of this amount of fine, the accused-petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. That period is also reduced to 7 days simple imprisonment. 7. Mr. Garg prays for 6 weeks time to deposit the amount of fine. Six weeks' time is allowed to the accused-petitioner to deposit the amount of fine. In case, the accused-petitioner, fails to deposit the amount of fine imposed against him within the aforesaid time, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur is directed to effect the arrest of the accused to undergo the sentence imposed against him in default of the payment of the amount of fine.Revision partly allowed. *******