JUDGMENT Petitioner Gayadeen stands convicted under section 380 of the IPC, with sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, led by the prosecution, at the trial, found petitioner Gayadeen guilty of commission of theft of the ornaments, belonging to complainant Dayaram, in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd Dec. 1982 and, therefore, convicted him, vide judgment dated 31.3.86, passed in Criminal Case No. 267/84, u/s 380 of the IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. Petitioner Gayadeen, being aggrieved of his above conviction and sentences, preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, on a reappreciation of the evidence on record, agreed with the findings, recorded by the trial Court, holding the petitioner guilty of the commission of the offence punishable u/s 380 of the IPC. The appellate Court, however, was of the view that the jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, awarded by the trial Court, was excessive and, therefore, while affirming the petitioner's conviction, u/s 380 of the IPC, the sentences, awarded by the trial Court, were modified to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-. Shri S.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Courts below have erred in recording the petitioner's conviction, u/s 380 of the IPC, though the prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities. The learned counsel, in the alternative, submits that the jail sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment, awarded by the appellate Court, may be restricted to the period already undergone by the petitioner, as a period of about 16 years has already elapsed since the commission of theft, in the year 1982, and the petitioner has already remained in jail for about 15 days. In a revision petition against conviction the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence on record as has been held by the Apex Court, in the case of Dulichand v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1960 . In a revision petition against conviction the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence on record as has been held by the Apex Court, in the case of Dulichand v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1960 . Even then for satisfying about the correctness of the findings, recorded by the Courts below, this Court has gone through the evidence of PW1 Dayaram, PW 2 Ram Prasad and PW 3 Sarju and is satisfied that the Courts below, on their cogent and reliable evidence, have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 380 of the IPC. The petitioner's conviction u/s 380 of the IPC, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. As for the sentence, a period of about 16 years has already elapsed since the commission of theft, in the year 1982, and it is also evident from the record that petitioner Gayadeen has already remained in jail for about 15 days. On considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in its entirety this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending petitioner Gayadeen back to jail now for serving out the balance of the jail sentence, at this distance of time, after the lapse of a period of 16 years since the commission of the offence. In the opinion of this Court the jail sentence already undergone by the petitioner alongwith the sentence of fine, imposed b; the Courts below, would be the sufficient punishment, for the offence found proved against the petitioner, and would meet the ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition is allowed in part. Petitioner's conviction, u/s 380 of the IPC, and sentence of fine of Rs.500/-, are hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, for the reasons mentioned here-in-above, is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Petitioner Gayadeen is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged on his depositing the amount of fine, if not already deposited.