O. P. PRADHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision by convicts is directed against the order dated 18. 6. 83, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1995 by learned Sessions Judge, Gonda. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that all the four revisionists were prosecuted in connection with an offence under Section 380 LPC On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the Court of II Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, they were found guilty under Section 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo one years RL and pay fine of Rs. 20001- each and. in default, to undergo three monthst more RJ Feeling dissatisfied with this order of conviction and sentence, an appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gonda. This gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1983 which was heard and dismissed on 18. 6. 83 and the conviction of the revisionists under Section 380 I. P. C. , was affirmed but the learned Sessions Judge maintained the sentence of imprisonment and set aside the order for payment of fine. Still aggrieved, the convicts preferred this revision. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as also the learned Government Advocate and perused the lower Courts record. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel of the revisionists attempted to challenge the finding, leading to the conviction of the revisionists but had to concede ultimately that he has no firm ground to challenge the same. In fact; the conviction of the revisionists is founded on the oral evidence of (sic. ). The testimony of Smt. Munni PW 1 is corroborated by First Information Report which was lodged on 19. 11. 80 at 3. 10 p. m. Adequate explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report has been furnished by Sukroo, CW 1, which has been accepted by both the lower Courts and 1 do not find any compelling reason to disagree with the appreciation of evidence of these witnesses by the Court below. The revisionists made wholesale denial of the prosecution allegations and revisionist Mukta Mani pleaded that he had illicit relations with Smt. Munni, wife of the complainant, Sukroo and, therefore, the revisionists have been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence has been adduced and the lower Courts have concurrently held that the defence plea has no legs to stand upon. The revisionists made wholesale denial of the prosecution allegations and revisionist Mukta Mani pleaded that he had illicit relations with Smt. Munni, wife of the complainant, Sukroo and, therefore, the revisionists have been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence has been adduced and the lower Courts have concurrently held that the defence plea has no legs to stand upon. I also feel that the defence plea has been rightly rejected by both the lower Courts. If the facts and circumstances and the material placed before the Court, the conviction of the revisionists under Section 380 I. P. C. is well founded. ( 5 ) NOW remains the question of sentence. The learned Counsel for the revisionists urged that the incident took place in the night of 18/19. 11. 80. According to him, all the revisionists have undergone about a weeks rigorous imprisonment after conviction by the lower Appellate Court. This fact has been verified by the lea me government Advocate also. The revisionists have already suffered mental agony during all these years, they have faced the criminal prosecution upto this level. No recovery has been set up against any of the revisionists either. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence, imposed on the revisionists, is modified to the extent that instead of imprisonment, each of them be made to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-and, in default, to undergo three months R. I. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the revisionists under Section 380 I. P. C. , the sentence of imprisonment, imposed on each of the revisionists, is modified to the extent that each of them will pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rs. two thousand) within two months, in default, thereof will undergo three months R. I. Out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. five thousand will be paid to the complainant, who suffered the loss of some silver ornaments as a result of theft from his house. The revisionists are already on bail, granted by this Court. They need not surrender to the bail bonds which will, however, stand discharged after the fine imposed by this Court, is paid by the revisionists. ( 7 ) LET the records of the lower Courts be sent back within fifteen days positively. Revision allowed partly. ---