ORDER : 1. By this Criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 7-12-2011 passed by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 331/2011, affirming the judgment and order dated 5-8-2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 5598/2009 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under section 457 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 2-9-2009 at about 6.30 P.M. the petitioner entered into the house of the complainant with an intention of robbery. Complaint in this regard has been lodged at police station Neel Ganga, Ujjain on 2-9-2009 (Exhibit P/1). After completion of investigation and trial accused petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as indicated herein above. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner has preferred this revision. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioners has urged that the conviction is contrary to the provisions of law. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which have not been considered by the trial Court. He submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. Hence, the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of the Courts below be set aside. 4. Learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State per contra stated that the judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the revision filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned judgment is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the Courts below. During trial petitioner was in custody for a period of 42 days (3.9.2009 to 7.9.2009 and 7.12.2011 to 13.1.2012). I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was young at the time of occurrence, the prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner is allowed, in the interest of justice and the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was young at the time of occurrence, the prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner is allowed, in the interest of justice and the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to be given to the victim as compensation under section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code within a period of two months from the date of this order. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. 6. With these directions, the revision is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Petitioner is on bail. This bail bond and surety bond are hereby discharged. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.