Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.8.2000 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, confirming the order of conviction recorded by Sri A.K. Datta, S.D.J.M., Sasaram, passed in G.R. case no. 496/90, trial no. 272/93. The revisionist was convicted under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 I.P.C. as also under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The trial court sentenced the revisionist to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 379 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and in default to undergo R.I. for two months. The appellate court maintained the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. However, it set aside the order of sentence under Section 379 I.P.C. and modified it to a fine of sentence of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Nobody appeared when this revision was called out for hearing, although there is vakalatnama filed by the revisionist. So, this Court is not under any obligation to wait for the revisionists lawyer indefinitely. I find that on two earlier occasions this revision was adjourned on the prayer of the revisionists lawyer. 3. On perusal of the memo of revision, I find that it has been averred therein that the seizure of the incriminating articles was made from the house of the brother of the revisionist and he lived separate from his brother. There was, perhaps, admission of P.Ws. regarding this fact. But I am of the opinion that admission of particular P.Ws. is not sufficient to prove that the revisionist lived separate from his brother, or that he had nothing to do with the house, in question, from where incriminating articles, such as, electric wire etc. were recovered. The allegation was to the effect that the special rading squad of the officials of the Electricity Department had raided the revisionists village and it was found that the revisionist was consuming electric energy by making a direct connection from the electricity main line and the main switch was connected to the electricity line. The accused-revisionist fled away at the time of raid. The electric wire by which the main line was connected was seized. The accused-revisionist fled away at the time of raid. The electric wire by which the main line was connected was seized. It was further detected that earlier there was a legal connection which was discontinued and still the accused was consuming electricity by direct connection. The fact that the revisionist was living separate from his brother was not confirmed by any evidence on behalf of the revisionist by saying that he had nothing to do with the house, in question, and that he had a different residential house. In such a circumstance, a stray admission of particular P.W. that the revisionist was separate from the brother would not be sufficient to prove that he was dissociated with the house, in question. 4. Both the courts on the basis of evidence have held that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 I.P.C. The appellate court was, rather, lenient in modifying the order of sentence, as stated above. So, I am not in favour of reducing the sentence. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no good case before this Court for interfering with the judgment of the appellate court. Hence, this revision is dismissed.