JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Rathore is directed to accept notice.This revision is directed against the appellant judgment dated 20.11.98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 411 IPC, and sentence of one year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case as Mr. Garg does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner. His only submission is that as the main accused has undergone the imprisonment and has not challenged his conviction, the period already undergone by the petitioner may be considered as sufficient sentence. 3. The short facts of the case are that on a report lodged by Jagdish Prasad on 14.8.95 a case under section 454 and 380 IPC was registered. During investigation on Rajesh @ Golu was arrested. On the information one item of theft was recovered from the possession of the petitioner who was sitting on the shop of jewellery one year after the occurrence. PW 7 Kesari Chand, Investigation Officer deposes that he had recovered a 'Chain' from the petitioner on the information furnished by Rajesh @ Golu. The recovery from the petitioner is thus fully established on record. 4. The petitioner has already remained in prison for about 40 days. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, I think that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner's sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. If the amount of fine is deposited, the petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Revision Partly Allowed. *******