JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.6.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2005 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and their conviction under Section 380 and 457 I.P.C. has been upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the facts which give rise to the present petition in nutshell are that on a report lodged by the complainant that in the morning of 8.3.2005 he found the locks of his shop broken, things scattered and goods stolen. He doubted that Shiv Raj Singh, Puran Singh and others might have committed this act. The police registered report, Investigated the matter and filed chargesheet against petitioners and one more person under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C. During trial, prosecution examined witnesses and exhibited documents in support of its case. The accused petitioners denied having committed any offence in their statements' recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but led no evidence in their defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sadulsahar in Criminal Regular Case No. 84/2005 State v. Shivraj Singh alias Raju and Ors , on conclusion of the trial convicted the accused-petitioners for the offence they were charged with and sentenced each of them for 8 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo further 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 380 I.P.C. and 10 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150, in default to further suffer 20 days simple imprisonment under Section 457 I.P.C. vide order dated 22.9.2005. The appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the present petitioners was dismissed affirming the conviction and,sentence passed by the trial Court. By filing the present revision petition the accused-petitioners have challenged the two judgments and orders and have prayed for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid judgments. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the case diary. 4. By filing the present revision petition the accused-petitioners have challenged the two judgments and orders and have prayed for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid judgments. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the case diary. 4. Before me, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not challenged the findings of conviction and addressed the arguments only in regard to the sentence awarded being excessive and prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter submitting that the accused-petitioners are young persons of about 28 years of age and they are the only earning members of their family and if the sentence awarded is sustained their families will be ruined. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the request made on behalf of accused-petitioners. 6. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the accused-petitioners are the only bread earners for their family and it was their first offence, the prayer made on behalf of accused- petitioners, in my opinion, justifies to reduce the substantive sentence and would meet the ends of justice if the substantive sentence awarded of 10 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 457 of I.P.C. is reduced to 4 months and the substantive sentence awarded of 8 months for the offence punishable under Section 380 of I.P.C. is reduced to 3 months while maintaining the fine imposed. 7. Consequently, the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 457 of I.P.C. is reduced to 4 months and in respect of the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. to 3 months rigorous imprisonment confirming the order that the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 8. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences, their substantive sentences are reduced as indicated above. The impugned judgment and Orders dated 22.9.2005 and 28.6.2006 respectively passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Is' Class Sadulsahar in Criminal Regular Case No. 84/2005 and Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Gangaragar in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2005 are modified accordingly.The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.Revision partly allowed. *******