JUDGMENT Rajan Gupta, J. (oral):-This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against her conviction and sentence under Section 379 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 6th August, 2005, the complainant Ram Niwas, who was running a grocery shop in front of Old Subzi Mandi, Jind, was sitting at his shop along with his son Kapil. There was rush of customers at his shop and he was busy in making them free. In the meantime, 3-4 women came to his shop and demanded sugar and other domestic items. When he and his son went inside the shop to bring grocery items, those women lifted tins of Vanspati ghee. However, they captured the accused (petitioner herein). The remaining women had already whisked away with stolen tins of ghee. He produced her along with the stolen tin before the police and moved complaint, on the basis of which a case under Section 379 IPC was registered against her. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie the commission of offence under Section 379 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as three witnesses. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in her defence. 3. The learned trial court after appraising the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 379 IPC. The petitioner Bimla was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 379 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Jind. 4. On a perusal of the judgments, I am of the considered view that the courts below correctly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged against her. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. 5. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a poor lady having small children to look after and not a previous convict. He stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. 6. He, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a poor lady having small children to look after and not a previous convict. He stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. 6. Learned counsel for the State has placed on record a custody certificate issued by Superintendent, B.I. & J. Jail, Hisar, according to which the petitioner has undergone 01 year and 09 days of her substantive sentence as on 8th July, 2010, and submits that in case the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, he shall have no objection to reduction of sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Taking into account totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has small children to look after, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by her. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. -----------