Judgment :- This Criminal Revision Case has been brought forth by the petitioner herein who was convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. The appeal against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the criminal revision case can be briefly stated thus: A case was registered on the file of Tiruppur North Police Station in Crime No.629 of 2000 against the petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 IPC on the allegation that he committed theft of a motor cycle belonging to one Karuppusamy (PW1) on 27.06.2000 at about 19.00 hours, when the said motor cycle had been parked in front of Viswam Mess, Kongu Main Road, Thiruppur. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused changed the number plate by displaying a bogus Registration No.TN-59-D-7664 and was caught by the Police on 30.05.2000 at about 5.00 a.m. After investigation,P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a final report on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.65 of 2001. After appearance of the petitioner/accused, necessary charge was framed and the petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial that followed, five witnesses were examined, six documents were marked and one material object was produced on the side of the prosecution. The complaint lodged by PW1 and the First Information Report prepared in the printed format have been marked as Exs.P1 and P5 respectively. The Observation Mahazar and the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer for the place from where the Motor Cycle was allegedly stolen by the accused have been marked as Exs.P.2 and P6 respectively. The admissible part of the confession statement of the petitioner/accused leading to the discovery of the fact that the motor cycle which he was using was the one found missing as per the complaint of PW1 has been marked as Ex.P.3 whereas the seizure mahazar for the recovery of motor cycle has been marked as Ex.P.4. The motor cycle itself has been produced before the trial Court and has been marked as M.O.1. P.W.2 Palanisamy and P.W.3 Elango are the attestors of Observation Mahazar. The motor cycle itself has been produced before the trial Court and has been marked as M.O.1. P.W.2 Palanisamy and P.W.3 Elango are the attestors of Observation Mahazar. P.W.4 Loganathan is the person in whose presence, the confession statement by the accused was recorded and the motor cycle was recovered under Ex.P.4, Seizure mahazar. After investigation, P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a final report on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.65 of 2001. After appearance of the petitioner/accused, necessary charge was framed and the petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial that followed, five witnesses were examined, six documents were marked and one Material object was produced on the side of the prosecution. 3. When the incriminating materials found in the evidence of the prosecution were pointed out to the accused and the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied them to be false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused. The trial Court, after considering the evidence brought before it, came to be conclusion that the charge against the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by Judgment dated 011. 2004 in C.C.No.65 of 2001. 4. As against the said order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in C.A.No.492 of 2004 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 5. Questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/accused. 6. This Court heard Mr.C.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Munniapparaj, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) representing the State. .7. 5. Questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/accused. 6. This Court heard Mr.C.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Munniapparaj, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) representing the State. .7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this case has submitted that though the revision has been filed challenging the order of conviction as well as the sentence, the challenge made to the order of conviction is not pressed and that the revision may be heard regarding the quantum of sentence alone. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner (revision case) it is unnecessary to traverse the evidence of the prosecution regarding the finding of the Courts below holding the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. However, it should also be appropriate to mention here that after going through the materials available on record in this case, this Court is not able to find any error or illegality in the concurrent finding of the Courts below holding the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. Hence, no interference can be made with the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision case contended that the award of a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is excessive and disproportionate and hence the same has got to be reduced. .9. Mr.R.Munniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) did not dispute the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that except the case on hand no other case was ever registered against the revision petitioner/accused for similar type of offence and that the present case being the only case against the revision petitioner/accused leniency should be shown in the matter of punishment. It is true for an offence under Section 379 IPC the punishment prescribed is fine or imprisonment of either description for a period which may extend upto three years or with both. It is true that an accused proved to have committed the said offence can even be fined without awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment. It is true for an offence under Section 379 IPC the punishment prescribed is fine or imprisonment of either description for a period which may extend upto three years or with both. It is true that an accused proved to have committed the said offence can even be fined without awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment. But considering the fact that the revision petitioner/accused in this case has not only committed theft of a motor cycle of Yamaha brand, but also was using the same displaying a bogus number plate, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case in which the Court has to be content with imposing fine alone and that the Courts below have rightly held that the case warranted imposition of substantive sentence of imprisonment. However, taking into account the fact that the present case happened to be the only case against the revision petitioner/accused, this Court feels that the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court is slightly on the higher side and that the same needs downward revision to some extent. This Court feels that the ends of justice shall be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment from one year rigorous imprisonment. 10. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The order of conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby confirmed but the sentenced alone is modified from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment.