JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - A short question for decision in these revisions, whether the conviction for the offence u/s 392, I.P.C. and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each as imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court should be sustained. 2. Heard Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the impugned judgment and the evidence of witnesses as referred to by Mr. Pati. Mr. Pati has strenuously urged that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the infirmity in the prosecution case with regard to delay in lodging F.I.R., non-examination of material witnesses and inherent nature of the improbabilities in the prosecution case with regard to complicity of two Petitioners in the case. It is further stressed by Mr. Pati that the two witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9 are none else other than the close friends of P.W. 7 who moved together from West Bengal to Rairangpur in each other's company. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to the evidence of P.Ws. and judgments of the Courts below and submits that there is No. infirmity in either of the two judgments. 3. On going through the materials on record, I do not find anything has been brought out by the defense to disbelieve the case of P.W.7 that he along with P.Ws.8 & 9 came to Rairangpur and stayed in the Nishamani Lodge on 25.9.1996. Evidence being found unimpeachable amply proves that all of them stayed in Nishamani Lodge where the accused Padmalava was having a barber's saloon. P.W.7 picked up acquaintance with Padmalava. It is further proved that after staying for two to three days, on 1.10.1986 P.W.7 and Padmalava went to the house of Niranjan in village Jamukeswar. He carried Rs. 9000/- with him which he had kept for purchase of timbers. It is further stated that in the night of 1.10.1986 at Jamukeswar P.W.7, Jugal Mohanta and Niranjan Mahanta the accused persons (Niranjan Mohanta since acquitted) all slept in the house of Niranjan. P.W.7 further alleged that in the night accused Padmalava at the point of knife took away Rs. 9000/- and thereafter he left the place. In the morning he came back to Rairangpur with Jugal where information was lodged and there was a search for Padmalava. P.W.7 further alleged that in the night accused Padmalava at the point of knife took away Rs. 9000/- and thereafter he left the place. In the morning he came back to Rairangpur with Jugal where information was lodged and there was a search for Padmalava. Subsequently, according to the prosecution, at the instance of Padmalava this amount was recovered from the house of Methisen Barik, father of accused Padmalava. The defense totally denied the prosecution case. 4. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence on record and given their reasons for accepting the prosecution case. I have not found any infirmity in conducting the proceeding. The scope for revision being limited to the extent of only judging the propriety and correctness of the judgment, I do not find any justifiable reason to disturb the findings on the basis of facts proved, that P.W.7 went with accused Padmalava on motor cycle to Jamukeswar. Secondly, all the four accused persons including Padmalava slept in the house of Niranjan and thirdly, in the morning Padmalava was found missing for which P.W. 7 searched for him. P.W.7 asked Jugal to take him to Rairangpur and thus both came to Rairangpur where F.I.R. was lodged. I do not disbelieve this evidence of P.W.7 alone, reason being that though cross-examination has been aimed to discredit the witness, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination from the side of defense to disbelieve that part of evidence. That apart, the evidence of P.W. 7 is found to have been adequately corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 9. The evidence of P.W. 7 coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer has successfully proved recovery of the money at the instance of Padmalava. So far as the circumstances leading to discovery of the amount at the instance of Padmalava is concerned, I am not incline a to disturb this finding being a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below. 5. The only point for consideration is, whether the case u/s 392, I.P.C. that Padmalava at the point of knife took away the money. This part of evidence relates to a graver offence which has to be discarded in absence of any corroboration. I hold that there is No. corroboration to the fact that Petitioner-Padmalava threatened P.W.7 at the point of knife and forcibly took the money. This part of evidence relates to a graver offence which has to be discarded in absence of any corroboration. I hold that there is No. corroboration to the fact that Petitioner-Padmalava threatened P.W.7 at the point of knife and forcibly took the money. The facts and circumstances of the case and the circumstantial evidence leading to discovery rather bring out that Padmalava committed theft of the amount in question for which conviction u/s 392, I.P.C. is set aside. However, he is liable to be convicted u/s 380, I.P.C. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision No. 447 of 1994 is dismissed with modification of sentence. Conviction u/s 392, I.P.C. and sentence are set aside. He having been found guilty for the offence u/s 380,I.P.C. as mentioned above, since the matter is taken up after about 12 years, it would not be proper to impose a substantive sentence of imprisonment after that stretch of time. However, keeping in view the circumstances under which Petitioner Padmalava committed the offence of theft, I feel ends of justice would be served if the fine amount is reduced to Rs. 1500/- to be deposited within a period of two months from today, in default, the Petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 7. So far as the other accused, namely, Jugal Kishore Mohanta is concerned, there is nothing on the record by which he has been implicated in the case. Conviction and sentence of the said accused is set aside in absence of materials against him. 8. In view of my above observation and orders, Criminal Revision No. 532 of 1994 is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed