JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (here in after referred to as 'the Code'), against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, dated Sept. 5, 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of L 500/-. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus. 2. On October 24, 1980, Mst. Kamla (P.W 6) was working in the field Situated in village Thawla (Nagaur) at about 11 a.m. the accused petitioner came there to snatch her earing and kara , he could not do so as she raised hue and cry. Report Ex.p/1 was lodged by her uncle Champa Lal (p w 1) in the police Station, Thawla, the same day. Thereupon, a case was registered under Section 392 read with Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code the accused-petitioner disclosed that he went in the said field to demand the price of the stone pieces supplied by him, he was beaten there and, therefore, a false case had got been made out against him. He examined Dr. B.K. Gupta (DW 1) and Dr. Vijay Sing (DW 2) in his defence. After bearing the parties, the Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur convicted and sentenced the accused as paid above. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, as said above. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that all the prosecution witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that the accused-petitioner was not known to item prior to the alleged occurrence and they were not asked to identify him in any identification parade. He further contended that Champa Lal (PW 1), Moti (PW 3) and Narain (PW 5) have deposed that they did not chase the accused who attempted to snatch the ear-ring and Kara. He lastly contended that M st. Kamla (PW 6) did not say in her statement on oath that the accused-petitioner attempted to snatch her ear-ring and Kara. 4. The learned Public Prosecution duly supported the judgments under revision. 5. It is well proved from the prosecution evidence that on October 24, 1980, at about 11 a.m., Mst. He lastly contended that M st. Kamla (PW 6) did not say in her statement on oath that the accused-petitioner attempted to snatch her ear-ring and Kara. 4. The learned Public Prosecution duly supported the judgments under revision. 5. It is well proved from the prosecution evidence that on October 24, 1980, at about 11 a.m., Mst. Kamla (PW 6) was working in the field situated in village Thawla and her ear-ring and Kara were attempted to be snatched away by a person. As a result thereof, she received abrasions over the lower border of her left ear-ring hole and lateral molleous of left leg. Report Ex. P/1 was immediately lodged about it. 6. The only question for consideration in this revision is whether it was the accused who did the said act. It is admitted by the accused-petitioner that he went there and he was beaten by a few persons. His defence is that he went there to demand the price of the stone pieces which he supplied. This defence put forward by the accused-petitioner was an after thought. In the lengthy bail application, Paper No. B/1/6 7, and in another application moved under Section 311 of the Code, Paper No. B/33-35, there is no such indication in them. On the contrary, it is well proved from the over-whelming prosecution evidence that it was the accused-petitioner who did the said acts. He was caught red-handed and was produced before the Police along with the report Ex. P/1. This fact is duly mentioned in it. The fact that he was not put to any identification parade was of no consequence as he was caught red-handed and produced before the Police. Champa Lal (PW 1), Hajari (PW 2), Moti (PW 3), Ghamanda Ram (PW 4) and Narain (PW 5) have deposed that on hearing the hue and cry of Kamla (PW 6), they went there, saw the accused running away and he was caught red-handed. Ram Singh (PW 8) has also deposed that he also went in the field where Kamla (PW 6) was working and saw 3-4 Rnigors' have caught-hold a person. Kamla (PW 6) has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused-petitioner was the person who attempted to remove her Kariya and ear-ring. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Kamla (PW 6) has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused-petitioner was the person who attempted to remove her Kariya and ear-ring. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The accused has not given the necessary particulars about the transaction of the stone pieces. He has not even disclosed the name of the person, time, quantity and amount of the stone pieces supplied The learned lower courts have rightly held the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code. Now the question is about the quantum of sentence. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the accused-petitioner be released of the sentence already undergone. He has been in judicial custody for about fifteen days during the investigation and he is in custody since September 5, 1988. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year cannot be said to be excessive. It is how ever, not necessary to impose the fine of L 500/-. 7. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year are maintained. The sentence of fine of L 500/- is set aside.Revision partly allowed. *******