JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This is a revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2014, delivered in Crl. A. No. 05 of 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. By the said judgment, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.03.2014 in G.R. Case No. 218 of 2011 has been affirmed. 2. Heard Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 3. From the record it transpires that the genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the complaint filed by one orderly of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar on 14.07.2011 disclosing that in absence of Sri M. Debbarma, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, when the informant was being deputed, doing some works at the back of the said quarter, the petitioner slipped into his quarter and took away one DVD player, one LPG Gas Cylinder and one Bell. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, Dharmanagar police station registered a specific case but against the unknown miscreants. During the investigation, three persons were arrested and shown they were accused in the said case. One of them is the present petitioner. 5. The Investigating officer has stated that during interrogation, the accused person revealed that the stolen DVD player was under the possession of the petitioner and the Gas Cylinder was under the possession of another person, namely, Sabul Miah who was also convicted and sentenced, however in the meanwhile he suffered the sentence. 6. On the basis of such information from the petitioner, on 17.07.2011 the stolen article was found. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 457/380/411/34 of the IPC and on taking cognizance, the charge was also framed for committing the offence of house trespass, theft and of receiving the stolen articles. The petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial. 7. In the trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, adduced witnesses including the informant, Uttam Kr. Tripura (PW-2) and the scribe, Nirmalandu Deb, (PW-1) Manabendra Debbarma (PW-3) and others. 8. After recording their evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C to have his response in respect of the incriminating materials. 7. In the trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, adduced witnesses including the informant, Uttam Kr. Tripura (PW-2) and the scribe, Nirmalandu Deb, (PW-1) Manabendra Debbarma (PW-3) and others. 8. After recording their evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C to have his response in respect of the incriminating materials. The petitioner then repeated his plea of innocence. Thereafter, the trial court returned the finding of conviction under Section 411 of the IPC. 9. The substantive evidence against the petitioner is the testimonies of Sanjay Dey, PW-7, Raju Das, PW-8 and Bidhan Pal PW-9, in whose presence, during investigation, the petitioner confessed that he committed theft in the house of PW-3. 10. PW-5, Sri Biplab Sarkar and PW-6, Sri Nikhil Nath were witness to the discovery. The said judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura was challenged in the appeal being Crl. A. No. 05 of 2014. The Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment and hence, by this petition, the appellate judgment has been challenged. 11. Mr. Ghosh, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent has submitted that the petitioner is in jail for more than 1 year and he has been convicted under Section 411 of the IPC. From the statement as recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C, it appears that on 24.02.2014, the petitioner was aged about 19 years and the said occurrence of theft took place on 14.07.2011. Apparently, it is on record that the petitioner might be juvenile on the day of occurrence but no plea in respect of juvenility was raised and hence there was no inquiry to determine the age of the petitioner. 12. On due appreciation, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of conviction as returned by the courts below does not call for interference. But having regard to the age of the petitioner at the time of occurrence, definitely the sentence calls for interference and accordingly, the sentence is reduced to the extent of the imprisonment/detention the petitioner has already suffered. 13. In the result, this revisional petition is allowed partly. The petitioner shall be released from the jail forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other cases. Send down the LRCs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. 13. In the result, this revisional petition is allowed partly. The petitioner shall be released from the jail forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other cases. Send down the LRCs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned Legal Aid counsel for doing the needful.