JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 29.6.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kota by which he confirmed the conviction of petitioner recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota. The petitioner was convicted under section 457 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment; and for offence under section 380/511 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100 /-, and in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that report Ex.P/ 1 was lodged by Sanjay Satyarthi on 26.2.1994 at 3.45 a.m. alleging that when he came back from a party at 2.15 a.m., he found the lights in his bed-room were on and the lock of the gate was found broken. There were some persons inside the house, therefore, he closed the door of the front side and also the door of back gate and then made an alarm. Certain persons assembled and police was called. Some miscreants were found in the room who were Pappu, Zahid and Mumtaz. A case was registered and ultimately the police challenged the accused-petitioner for offences u /ss. 457 & 380/511 IPC. Accused-petitioner was charged, he denied his indictment and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Then statement of accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not produce any evidence in defence. Vide judgment dated 15.9.1994, accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as stated above. Accused-petitioner filed an appeal and was unsuccessful as the appeal was dismissed on 29.6.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in view of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Math Jathavedan Namboodiri, JT 1999 (1) SC 456 submitted that there is a glaring feature in this case. He pointed out that though accused is said to have been caught at the place of occurrence at 2.15 a.m. yet the arrest memo Ex.P/ 7 shows time as 3.40 a.m. I do not think that it is a glaring feature which may entitle the accused-petitioner for acquittal in this case. He pointed out that though accused is said to have been caught at the place of occurrence at 2.15 a.m. yet the arrest memo Ex.P/ 7 shows time as 3.40 a.m. I do not think that it is a glaring feature which may entitle the accused-petitioner for acquittal in this case. However, the evidence of Sanjay, PW 1 shows that he returned at about 2.15 a.m. He found that the light of his bed-room was on. He locked the main gate and also locked back gate. He then made alarm. Certain persons collected and the police was called. It was in the presence of the Police Officers that accused-petitioner was taken out of the bed-room and then was taken to the police station. The report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station Dadabari, Kota and FIR No. 80/94 was registered. Thereafter, the arrest memo was prepared. It has come in evidence of PW 7, Panna Lal Mishra, Investigating Officer that when the police reached at the spot, then after hectic efforts, accused-petitioner and his colleagues opened the door from inside and then they were brought to the police station. The feature which the learned counsel pointed out is not such which may entitle the accused-petitioner to acquittal. 5. So far as sentence is concerned, I am of the view that in such case, no leniency should be shown when an accused is caught red handed specially when he has no ground to explain his entry in the house of the complainant at the dead hour of the night, and entered to commit theft. 6. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******