PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS assail their conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Baripada and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baripada. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 12-9-1982 a first information-report was lodged by the Electrical Sectional Officer, Construction, Betnoti alleging that in the night between 11-9-1982 and 12-9-1982 Low tension conductors of 12 spans had been stolen from Sarbana sub-station. During investigation and acting on some information, houses of the present petitioners were searched and some cut wires, aluminium articles and semi-finished aluminium products were seized. The seized aluminium wires were sent to the S. D. O. , Electrical for opinion as to whether they are low tension conductors used by the Orissa State Electrical Board. The answer was in the affirmative. Therefore, the two petitioners and another Rabindra Kumar Patil (since acquitted) were sent for trial for offences punishable under Ss. 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'ipc' ). Plea of the petitioners was one of denial of the occurrence. Eight witnesses were examined to further the case of prosecution. On evaluation of evidence, it was held that the guilt of the petitioners was established beyond shadow of doubt. The petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under S. 411, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. ( 3 ) MAIN plank of the petitioners' argument is that there was no positive material to show that the materials seized from the houses of the petitioners were stolen property and, therefore, their possession cannot be said to be unlawful. It is submitted that they are blacksmiths by profession, and had to undertake repairing works of aluminium articles. Learned counsel for the State submits that possession of materials which are not available in open market clearly establishes that the petitioners were guilty of offences as alleged. ( 4 ) ON evaluation of materials placed and evidence on record, I find that the materials which were seized from the houses of the petitioners are not commonly available in the market and, therefore, a presumption that possession thereof was unlawful can be made. Illustration as to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to such a case. Illustration as to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to such a case. The facts of the present case are almost akin to these involved in (1965) 31 CLT 1022: (1965 (1) Cri LJ 746), State of Orissa v. Udaya Pradhan. The said case involved theft of telegraph wire. I do not find any infirmity in the process of reasoning or evaluation of evidence as done by the courts below. While, therefore, exercising revisional jurisdiction, I do not find any scope for interference. Since the articles are not available in the open market, the petitioners' possession was unauthorised and unlawful. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the conclusions drawn by the courts below about guilt of the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE residual question is whether the sentence awarded is proper. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the sole bread earners of their families and if they are sent to jail their family members shall be thrown to starvation. The learned counsel for the State submits that considering large number of theft of electric wires causing disruption of supply of electricity, and inconvenience caused thereby, the sentence is rather liberal. ( 6 ) ON consideration of the rival submissions, I find that the petitioners are young persons. There is no material of any previous accusation. Sentence should be deterrent, so that citizens will have to think twice before attempting to commit an unauthorised and unlawful act similar to that committed by the petitioners. At the same time, it should not be harshly rigorous so as to wipe out any chance of reformation, which is the call of common day criminal jurisprudence. Considering all these, I feel sentence of one years' rigorous imprisonment will meet ends of justice. ( 7 ) THE criminal revision is dismissed subject to aforesaid modification of sentence. Revision dismissed.