Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Nazar Singh son of Mohinder Singh, along with Saudagar Singh son of Mohinder Singh was convicted and sentence by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1 st Class), Fatehgarh Sahib to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under Section 380 IPC. He was also convicted and sentence under Section 452 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He was further convicted and sentenced under Section 506 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. 2. Petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No. 28 dated 12.04.1998 registered at Police Station Khamanon under Sections 386, 427, 451, 452, 506, 34 IPC. The FIR was lodged on the statement of Nagar Singh. He stated that on 19th April, 1997 at about2.00 p.m. when he was away from his house, present petitioner Nazar Singh along with his co-accused Saudagar Singh, came armed with Dang and after breaking the lock of the house, they removed the tractor Ford 3600 bearing registration No. PBS-1504, along with iron plough, one iron leveler, one shaft, two ceiling fans and some other articles belonging to the complainant. At that time, Kamaljit Kaur wife and Surjit Kaur mother of the complainant were present and they made an attempt to restrain the accused from taking away the tractor and other articles but a threat was given by the accused that the ladies will be liquidated. 3. On the statement made by Surjit Kaur, no case was registered at Police Station Khamanon, which necessitated Nagar Singh to approach this Court for registration of the FIR. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submission before this Court. Firstly, he has stated that the stand of the accused petitioner is that the tractor was purchased from the joint funds of the family, therefore, they were also equally entitled to the possession of the tractor. Secondly, it has been submitted that interested witnesses, wife and mother of the complainant, have been examined by the complainant. 5. Learned trial Court did not accept these two contentions and as stated earlier, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same petitioner had filed an appeal. Secondly, it has been submitted that interested witnesses, wife and mother of the complainant, have been examined by the complainant. 5. Learned trial Court did not accept these two contentions and as stated earlier, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court reduced the sentence from 1-1/2 years to 1 year. 6. Mr. S.S. Rangi appearing for the petitioner has stated that in the present case, FIR was registered after a delay of one year. 7. At the very earliest, an application was filed by the complainant and since the case was not registered, complainant had to approach this Court for registration of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that complainant was not pursuing the remedy available to him. Therefore, delay cannot be construed against the prosecution. 8. Mr. Rangi, at this stage, has stated that the occurrence has taken place in year 1998 and period of more than 11 years has elapsed, therefore, he will not assail the conviction of the petitioner, but he pray to this Court that sentence awarded upon the petitioner should be adequately reduced. 9. Taking into consideration protracted trial suffered by the petitioner, sentence awarded upon to the petitioner is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine is maintained. 10. With this modification in the sentence, present revision petition is disposed off.