( 1 ) HEARD Sri U. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned a. G. A. and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS revision by two accused Koleshar and Shivchan is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-9-1986 passed by additional Sessions Judge. Azamgarh in criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1984 whereby he confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 380 I. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. It is noteworthy that learned Magistrate had sentenced each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. ( 3 ) IN brief the prosecution came to the court with the allegation that in the night intervening 27th/28th December, 1981 at about 1-30 a. m. the revisionists along with others committed theft in the house of Raj kumar and Koleshar, one of the revisionists was apprehended by the informant and others on the spot along with stolen articles. Moreover, Koleshar was seen by the witnesses handing over the articles kept on the box to his associates including Shivchan. ( 4 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all, including Raj kumar, the informant his father Banarasi and his wife Smt. Kamla Devi. ( 5 ) ACCUSED Koleshar claimed that he was a ploughman of Raj Kumar but he left the job and as such he was falsely implicated. Accused Shivchan claimed that Hasuli, which was allegedly recovered from his possession belonged to his mother and the I. O. took the Hasuli from her neck. ( 6 ) AFTER having considered the evidence on record, learned Magistrate found both koleshar and Shivchan guilty for committing theft in dwelling house punishable under Section 380 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. ( 7 ) THE appellate Court fully agreeing with the conclusions of the trial Court confirmed the conviction of the revisionists (Koleshar and Shivchan) and reduced their sentence to a period of six months. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revisionists has assailed the judgment of the courts below mainly on the ground that P. W. 1 Ram Nath, P. W. 2 Vashisth, P. W. 3 Kumar and P. W. 4 Rajai did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revisionists has assailed the judgment of the courts below mainly on the ground that P. W. 1 Ram Nath, P. W. 2 Vashisth, P. W. 3 Kumar and P. W. 4 Rajai did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. However, the learned Magistrate as well as appellate court found the revisionists guilty and thus, both the Courts below committed illegality in appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution. It has also been urged that inordinate delay took place in lodging the FIR and the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been urged that the incident took place in the month of december, 1981 and since then 23 years have passed and as such the revisionists deserve sympathy of this Court. ( 9 ) RELIANCE has been placed on a decision of this Court in Kamlesh v. The State, 1989 All LJ 903. ( 10 ) LASTLY, it has been urged that in view of the long interval between the date of incident and date of disposal of this revision, the revisionists who are now 48 years and 55 years old respectively should not be sent to jail after being released by this Court on 24-9-1986 and no purpose will be served by sending them again to jail. Learned counsel for the revisionists further urged that the revisionists are collaterals of the informant and on account of family dispute they were falsely implicated. ( 11 ) I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists so far as the merits of the case is concerned. It is true that first four witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story I, however, find that P. W. 5 Raj Kumar, who is informant, P. W. 6 Banarasi, father of the informant and P. W. 7 Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the informant fully supported the prosecution story and stated in clear words that on the impugned night Koleshar was apprehended on the spot while committing theft j along with stolen articles and he was seen handing over the stolen articles to Shivchan. In other words, the witnesses have claimed, that Koleshar was apprehended by family members on the spot. So far as the alleged delay in lodging the F. I. R. is concerned. In other words, the witnesses have claimed, that Koleshar was apprehended by family members on the spot. So far as the alleged delay in lodging the F. I. R. is concerned. Raj kumar gave out that he could not dare to go to the police station in the night. He lodged f. I. R. next day at 11. 45 a. m. at the police; station situated at a distance of seven miles. It is noteworthy that it was winter and month of December. In this view of the matter, find that no delay took place in reporting the incident to the local police I find that there is concurrent finding of the Courts below that both the revisionists took part in the theft and one of them (Koleshar) was apprehended on the spot. I see no valid reason to take a different view. In my opinion there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the Courts below. However. In view of all facts and circumstances, as noted above this revision is disposed of as under. ( 12 ) THE conviction of the revisionists under Section 380 I. P. C. is confirmed. They are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-within a period of three months from today. In the event of default, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Revision dismissed. .