JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, who have convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 27.6.1987 passed in Criminal Case No. 41/1983, for offences under Sections 392 and 394 I.P.C. and have been directed to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for one year each and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed against that judgment has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 24.7.1995. hence, this revision petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgments and the records of the case. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners, but submits that the amount allegedly looted in this case was Rs. 98/- only and the incident took place on 10.9.1981. He submits that now more than 30 years have passed and the petitioners have already remained in the custody for 62 days. He submits that the petitioners are the labourers and have large families to support and if they are send to the custody after 30 years from the date of incident then their families would be led to destitution and starvation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have committed the heinous offence of robbery and, thus the sentence awarded to them should not be reduced. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments made at the bar. 6. Un-disputedly, in this case, the incident took place more than 30 years ago and the alleged amount looted by the petitioners was Rs. 98/- and a ladies wrist watch. The petitioners have not caused any substantial injury to any one of the complainant party. At the time of the occurrence, petitioner Kham Mohammed was 25 years of age and petitioner Hasan Khan was also aged about 25 years. Accordingly, now both of them have crossed the age of 55 years. They have remained custody for more than two months. Thus, this Court feels that sending the petitioners to custody after a lapse of 30 years since the date of the incident, would render the families of the petitioners to destitution and would be too harsh looking to the small amount involved. 7. They have remained custody for more than two months. Thus, this Court feels that sending the petitioners to custody after a lapse of 30 years since the date of the incident, would render the families of the petitioners to destitution and would be too harsh looking to the small amount involved. 7. Resultantly, the revision petition is partly allowed While maintaining the convictions of the petitioners, as recorded by the learned lower Courts, the sentences awarded to the petitioners are reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.Revision petition party allowed. *******