M. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE accused-petitioner who has been found guilty on the charge of the commission of the offence of theft punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 days, has filed this revision petition questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsi and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, on appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts found proved are that on 16. 12. 1980at about 1. 00 p. m. when Dattatreya Anantheshetty (P. W. 1) was purchasing vegetables at about 1. 00 p. m. in Sirsi Market in the shop of Imamsab Mohinuddinsab Savanur (P. W. 4) the accused-petitioner picked up a Currency Note of Rs. 10/- from his pocket and when he was running with the Currency Note in his hand he was caught by P. W. 5-Ganesh Govind Deshbandhari a Head Constable red handed with the note in his hand. ( 3 ) A perusal of the evidence shows there is no error as regards appreciation of the evidence and in reaching this conclusion by the Court below. ( 4 ) MR. Jayaprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner however submitted that it was a proper case where benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act could be given to the petitioner and the learned Magistrate was in error in not extending the benefit to the accused- petitioner. The learned Magistrate it appears has considered this aspect of the case and having regard to the History Sheet of the accused-petitioner produced by the police, and his antecedents being not good has considered it not proper to give him the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It would appear that he was bound over under the provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, it appears there is no error committed by the learned Magistrate in not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Mr. It would appear that he was bound over under the provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, it appears there is no error committed by the learned Magistrate in not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Mr. Jayaprakash, however submitted that the accused being an youngster and aged about 25 years at the time of the incident, there being dependents, at this distance of time it was not necessary to send him to Jail, and ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, with the period of detention as an under trial prisoner. It appears as an under trial prisoner he was in jail for about 7 days and he had also undergone sentence for a period of 5 days. The period of 12 days, as an under trial prisoner and the sentence undergone by him is more then sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period of 12 days undergone by the accused. The bail bond of the accused petitioner if any shall stand cancelled. r