JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 26-1-1988 whereby the conviction of accused petitioner Om Prakash for the offence under Section 457/300, Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nohar was altered into Magistrate one under Section 454/380, Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of L 100/-on each count and in default to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 454/380, Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that complainant Sipo Lal went for his treatment to Sirsa on 10-7-1985. His house is situated in Ward No. 8 of Nohar town. He came back to his house on 10-8 1985 and found that outer lock of his house was broken. Locks of all the room were also found broken. Locks of all the boxes and safe were also found broken and certain goods were found scattered. On checking, he found that two gold bangles with pearls weighing about 21/2 tolas, one golden Necklace weighing about three tolas, two golden rings weighing about one tola and one ear-ring weighing about 1/2 tola, 11 silver coines and one silver chain etc. were found stolen. A report of this incident was lodged on 11-8-1985 at about 8 a m. at PS Nohar. 3. The Police decided certain foot prints and their woulds were taken by it. It arrested accused Bajrang Singh and Om Prakash and on their information and at their instance, certain ornaments were recovered from their own person or from their houses or from some goldsmiths of Jaipur, Nohar and Sriganganagar etc. The moulds of the foot prints were sent for examination and it was found that these foot prints were of accused Bajrang Singh and Om Prakash. After usual investigation, the case was challenged in the court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Nohar, where the accused persons were held guilty of the offence under Sections 457 & 380, Indian Penal Code. On appeal, their conviction was altered from No 457 & 380, Indian Penal Code to 454/380, Indian Penal Code. Hence this revision by accused-petitioners, Om Prakash as aforesaid. 4. I have bead Mr. On appeal, their conviction was altered from No 457 & 380, Indian Penal Code to 454/380, Indian Penal Code. Hence this revision by accused-petitioners, Om Prakash as aforesaid. 4. I have bead Mr. J.L. Daga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused petitioner Omprakash and Mr. L.M. Lodha, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. J.L. Daga, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for accused petitioner Omprakash has submitted that in this case, conviction under Sections 454/380, Indian Penal Code could not have been recorded Actually, the accused petitioner Omprakash should have been held guilty of the offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code because the occurrence took place some where between 10 7-1985 to 10-8-1985. The recoveries have been made after 19th August, 1985. He has not challenged the recoveries made at the instance and on the information of accused petitioner Omprakash but he has submitted that those recoveries cannot be held to be recent so as to draw a presumption under Sections 454/380, Indian Penal Code. The occurrence has taken place between 10th July, 1985 to 10th August, 1985. The foot prints of accused persons were found in the house where the burglary took place and those foot prints have tallied with specimen foot prints of accused Omprakash and Bajrang Singh and the report of the foot print expert has been proved by the prosecution. Thus, it is conclusively proved that these very accused persons have committed this theft by breaking open the locks of the house. More over, certain documents have been reduced which were executed by these accused persons after July 10, 1985, which also shows that they were in possession of the stolen articles in the month of July and their possession cannot be said to be very old in the facts and circumstances of this case. I, therefore, feel that the learned lower court was perfectly justified in taking the view that accused persons Bajrang Singh and Omprakash have committed this burglary. Thus, the accused petitioner Omprakash has rightly been held guilty of the offence under Section 454/380, Indian Penal Code. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, Mr. I, therefore, feel that the learned lower court was perfectly justified in taking the view that accused persons Bajrang Singh and Omprakash have committed this burglary. Thus, the accused petitioner Omprakash has rightly been held guilty of the offence under Section 454/380, Indian Penal Code. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, Mr. J.L. Daga, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused petitioner Omprakash has submitted that accused Bajrang Singh has already caused out the sentence imposed against him whereas accused Omprakash has remained in Jail for about 389 days. The occurrence took place in the year 1985 and, therefore, some lenient view may be taken so far as the sentence is concerned. The manner in which this burglary has keen committed by these accused persons viz., Omprakash and Bajrang Singh by breaking open the locks of the house in the absence of its owner, ordinarily do not deserve any sympathy specially when the learned lower court i.e the first appellate court has already reduced the sentence imposed by the learned trial court. Keeping in view the fact that this is the first offence of accused Omprakash as he has not been convicted earlier of any offence, I take a lenient view and feel that the ends of justice would be met if accused petitioner. Omprakash is sentenced to one and half years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of L 100/- on each count and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment on each count for the offence under Sections 454/380, Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result I accept this appeal in part maintain the conviction of accused petitioner Omprakash and sentence him to one and half years rigorous imprisonment on each count for the offences under Sections 454/380, Indian Penal Code. Both substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 8. Let the record of this case be sent to the learned lower court forth with.Appeal partly allowed. *******