RADHEY KRISHNA AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) ALL the five revisionists had been convicted by the Magistrate for an offence under Section 379 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo R. I. for 15 days. The learned Appellate court dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, in the night of 12/13. 1. 1979 the accused persons had stolen the wood from the bank of river. The complainant carries to know about the said theft in the morning of 13/1/1979 when Goongey and Tirath had informed him that they had seen the accused persons carrying his wood. The complainant went to the accused and made enquiry, but they started quarrelling. Then F. I. R. was lodged by the complainant the next day i. e. on 13/1/1979 at 7. 45 p. m. Subsequently on 1/2/1979 the said wood was recovered from the possession of the accused. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed ownership of the wood. In support of its case the prosecution examined Ganga Ram P. W. 2, Tirath P. W. 3, complainant Patiram P. W. 1 besides other formal witnesses regarding recovery and investigation. Both the courts below relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for. the revisionists has contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to support the findings of the courts below. In revision this court would not be justified in entering into the facts and appraising the evidence. It has also been argued that from the evidence of the complainant it is not at all made out that the wood recovered belonged to him. The two witnesses, namely, Tirath and Ganga Ram had clearly stated that the wood belonged to the complainant and if we go through the entire statement of the complainant it would give clear indication that the complainant did claim the said wood. In my opinion, therefore, the learned courts below were justified in finding the accused guilty. The two witnesses, namely, Tirath and Ganga Ram had clearly stated that the wood belonged to the complainant and if we go through the entire statement of the complainant it would give clear indication that the complainant did claim the said wood. In my opinion, therefore, the learned courts below were justified in finding the accused guilty. ( 5 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the incident had taken place in 1979 and that the allegation was that the accused had taken away the wood worth Rs. 1500. 00. The accused persons have already suffered ordeal of prosecution for the last 14 years and had already undergone a part of the sentence and 14 years after the incident it would not be proper to send the accused persons in jail. ( 6 ) TAKING in view all these facts, therefore, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. 00 besides the fine imposed by the learned Magistrate. ( 7 ) THE revision is allowed in part. The order of conviction is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. 00 each besides Rs. 200. 00 imposed by the learned Magistrate. The entire fine be paid within two months, failing which they would undergo further R. I. for 15 days. Revision allowed party. .