Judgment Sabina, J. 1. The petitioners were convicted for offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ipc) vide judgment dated 20.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa. Vide order of the even date, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.12.2009, passed by learned additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Mansa. Hence, the present revision petition under Sec.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution case in brief as noticed by learned Additional sessions Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, is as under:- "brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 15.5.2002, ASI chanan Singh along with police party of P. S. Bhikhi was present at bus stand, dhaipi in connection with patrol duty. Complainant Manmohan Singh son of niranjan Singh resident of Hodla Kalan got his statement Ex. PA recorded, wherein he reported that he is agriculturist. He is also doing work of seeds of hybrid capsicum (chilli ). He was receiving payment daily. He had kept about Rs.50,000/-in the Almirah kept in the store room adjoining to his bed room. On previous day, he had come back at about 3:00 p. m. after attending meeting called by D. C. , mansa in connection with agriculture. He kept his purse also in the Godrej almirah. He also checked the amount already lying in the locker. After taking meal as usual, they went to their respective bed rooms to asleep. On that day, at about 5.00/5.30 a. m. , he went to store room to take shoes for morning walk. He noticed that the Godrej Almirah was open. Its keys were lying on the ground and the cash from the locker was missing. Complainant suspected that someone after entering in the store room from net of the roof top had committed theft. After leaving his son Karamjit Singh at the spot, he was going to report matter by associating one Sardul Singh. After recording this statement Ex. PA, ASI chanan Singh attested the same vide his attestation Ex. PA/1 and recorded police proceedings, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. After leaving his son Karamjit Singh at the spot, he was going to report matter by associating one Sardul Singh. After recording this statement Ex. PA, ASI chanan Singh attested the same vide his attestation Ex. PA/1 and recorded police proceedings, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded at Police station, Bhikhi. Thereafter, police party visited the spot. Visual site plan ex. PA/3 was prepared. Four impressions available near the place of occurrence of right and left foot of two persons were lifted by moulds and all these moulds were taken in police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB. On 23.5.2002, accused were arrested. Accused-appellant Jagtar Singh suffered disclosure statement ex. PC, wherein he disclosed that he and Balwant Singh had committed theft from the house of Manmohan Singh and he has kept concealed Rs.25,000/- which came to his share in the room meant for dry fodder and this fact is in his exclusive knowledge. In pursuance to this disclosure statement, Rs.25,000/- along with some other papers were recovered from the possession of Jagtar Singh and taken in police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PC/1. Accused Balwant Singh also suffered disclosure statement Ex. PD, wherein he disclosed that he along with jagtar Singh had committed theft in the house of Manmohan Singh and cash amount of Rs.25,000/- of his share in kept concealed in Peti in the fold of mattress and this fact is in his exclusive knowledge. In pursuance of this disclosure statement, cash amount of Rs.25,000/- along with some other documents was recovered from Balwant Singh and taken in police possession vide recovery memo ex. PD/1. Visual site plans of the place of recoveries were prepared. Memos of arrest of both the accused were prepared. During further investigation, four impressions of right and left foot of both the accused were obtained in the presence of Shri Mohinder Singh Kainth, ADC, Mansa and converted into moulds and taken in police possession. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned to face trial in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate. " 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. 5. The case of the complainant was that on the night intervening 14/15th May, 2002, theft had taken place in his house. " 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. 5. The case of the complainant was that on the night intervening 14/15th May, 2002, theft had taken place in his house. The complainant reported the matter to the police and consequently, FIR in question was registered. Accused were arrested on 23.5.2002 and recovery of Rs.25,000/-each was effected from the petitioners on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by them. It has been noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment that although PW2-Harvir Singh, who was recovery witness, had been declared hostile yet when he was cross examined by the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, he supported the prosecution case qua the recovery got effected by the petitioners on the basis of their disclosure statement. The said witness was not cross examined by the defence counsel. 6. In these circumstances, the courts below have rightly ordered the conviction of the petitioners under Sec.457, 380 IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment was on the higher side. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence quo imprisonment for two years cannot be said to be on the higher side and calls for no interference by this Court. Dismissed.