JUDGMENT V.P. MATHUR, J. 1. REVISIONIST Rakesh Kumar was convicted on a charge under section 380 of the IPC by the First Additional Munsif Magistrate, Agra by his order dated 28-2-1984. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000-00 was also imposed. In default of the payment of the same, he was called upon to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. AN appeal being numbered 41 of 1984 was preferred. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Agra who disposed of this appeal on 8-8-84 confirmed the order of First Additional Munsif Magistrate and dismissed the appeal in to. Hence this revision. It has been admitted only on the point of sentence. 3. BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story was that on 30-6-1982 at about 3-00 in the evening Duli Chand and Tej Singh the sons of the complainant Natthilal returned to their house at Dayal Nagar and found that the lock of their front door was lying open They entered the house and found the revisionist committing theft of water-pipe. He had already taken a five feet long piece of this pipe and was trying to remove another pipe. When an alarm was raised by these two persons, with the help of witnesses Prahlad and one police Sub- Inspector, the accused was apprehended on the spot. Then a report was lodged and investigation was made and the case came up before the learned Magistrate. 4. IN support of its case, the prosecution examined Natthilal complainant, Duli Chand, Tej Singh and Sub-Inspector Ram Singh as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. After going through the evidence of these witnesses and perusing the other documents on the record, which was summoned and is placed before me today, I come to the conclusion that the conviction of the revisionist under section 380 of the IPC was rightly returned. 5. THE question of sentence however requires some consideration. There is evidence on the record to show that between 29-1-1986 and 11-7-1986 this man remained in Jail Custody prior to the grant of bail to him by this Court. This will be a period of about six months. Prior to that, he remained in Jail custody for about 18 days more. He has thus remained in Jail custody for almost seven months already. It is said that he has already deposited the amount of Rs. This will be a period of about six months. Prior to that, he remained in Jail custody for about 18 days more. He has thus remained in Jail custody for almost seven months already. It is said that he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 1000-00 which was imposed by way of .fine. There is however nothing on the record to show that this amount of fine has been deposited. THE learned counsel says that the deposit was made in the Thana when a warrant of arrest was sought to be executed against him. THE matter shall be left to be probed into by the learned Magistrate and if he finds that the amount of fine has already been deposited, then no further action in this respect need be taken. 6. THE revision is however allowed to this extent that while conviction of the revisionist under section 380 of the IPC stands confirmed, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 1000/- which if he has deposited in the Court below, no further action need be taken, but if it has not yet been deposited, it shall be deposited within a period of three months from today. In default of the payment of fine, the revisionist will however undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, as has been awarded by the Courts below.