Judgment : Challenging and impugning the judgment dated 23. 2007 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in C.A.No.141 of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 28. 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, in C.C.No.378 of 2002, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: (a) The Railway Police laid the police report before the Magistrate as against the accused under Section 3(1) of the Railways Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted. (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined; Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. On the accuseds side, on oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence as under: Table (d) Challenging and impugning the judgment of the trial Court, C.A.No.141 of 2005 was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, which Court confirmed the conviction but however modified the sentence by reducing the two years rigorous imprisonment into one year rigorous imprisonment. 3. Animadverting upon the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the sum and substance of them would be to the effect that both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that such alleged stolen articles are also available in common market and there is nothing to indicate that those properties are Railway properties. However, the quantum of stolen property involved was very meager. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below. 4. At the hearing itself the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he is restricting his argument only to the quantum of sentence imposed by the appellate Court, as the sentence of one year substantive imprisonment awarded by the appellate Court is disproportionate to the offence committed, as the alleged stolen articles were worth only less than Rs.1700/-. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate, who would submit that in matters of this nature, severe punishment should be imposed, as otherwise, it will have deleterious effect on the society and the like minded persons will not be deterred in committing similar crimes. 6. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate, who would submit that in matters of this nature, severe punishment should be imposed, as otherwise, it will have deleterious effect on the society and the like minded persons will not be deterred in committing similar crimes. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentence of one year substantive imprisonment awarded by the appellate Court along with fine is incommensurate with the gravity of offence. 7. A plain reading of the judgments of both the Courts below and the perusal of the records would reveal and disclose that one Malaisamy was in possession of some properties of the Railways, whereupon the Railway police accosted and arrested him and on interrogating him, they culled out the fact that he sold the Railways stolen articles to the revision petitioner herein. Whereupon, in accordance with law, search was conducted in the shop of the revision petitioner and six fish plates, worth about Rs.1700/-, belonging to the Railways, were seized from his shop. There is nothing to indicate that the revision petitioner is a previous offender and as such, for the first time, it appears, he committed the offence and the worth of the stolen property is only less than Rs.1700/-. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that already the revision petitioner underwent one month detention and the same may be treated as sufficient punishment. 9. Taking into account the fact that the value of the stolen article was not huge and that the revision petitioner is a first offender, I am of the considered opinion that awarding one month imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. It appears, already the revision petitioner paid the fine imposed by the of lower Court. 10. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the appellate Court is reduced to one month simple imprisonment and the remaining part of the judgment of the appellate Court is left in tact. The fine imposed and paid also shall be in tact. 11. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The lower Court is directed to enforce this Courts order on receipt of a copy of it, if he has not already undergone the sentence.