ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Accused-Petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 25.10.1996, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’), whereby learned appellate Court, while rejecting the appeal preferred by petitioners, affirmed judgment dated 31.03.1994, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3 Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court). The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.03.1994, convicted the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC and sentenced them as under:- Under Section 457 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 380 IPC: Six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days’ simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As some of the accused-petitioners; viz., Gatiya, Deva, Valia and Dhania (petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 6), have expired during the pendency of revision petition, the revision against them abates and now the present revision petition concerns only with petitioners No.2 & 4 Punia and Kaliya respectively. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that on 31.05.1978, a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by one Kanti Lal at Police Station Dhariyawar, District Udaipur, against accused-petitioners and others, alleging, inter alia, that in the night of 31.05.1978, when he and other members of family were sleeping outside house, accused petitioners committed burglary and taken away stolen gold & silver jewellery and cash. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet for offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC against petitioners and others and the learned trial Court framed charge. On denial, accused were put on trial. 4. In order to prove charge against accused-petitioners, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Subsequently, statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court, then proceeded to hear final arguments and after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, by its verdict dated 31.03.1994, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as aforesaid. 5. Feeling dismayed with verdict dated 31.03.1994, petitioners approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence available on record. 5. Feeling dismayed with verdict dated 31.03.1994, petitioners approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence available on record. After scrutinizing the entire evidence and other materials available on record, the learned appellate Court fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court, which entailed dismissal of the appeal. It is, in that background, petitioners have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, does not challenge the conviction but prays that keeping in view the fact that out of six petitioners four have already expired and the remaining two petitioners, who are in the evening phase of their life in eighties & seventies, it would be appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to them by learned trial Court to the period already undergone by them by granting indulgence in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in totality of circumstances punishment awarded to the petitioners be altered by reducing the sentence to the period they have already undergone. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in case of (1) Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 664], and (2) Rakesh @ Roketiya v. State of Rajasthan [2011 Cr.L.R (Raj.) 1427]. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record. 9. The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in this revision petition, lies in narrow compass, inasmuch as, learned counsel for the petitioners has abandoned challenge to the indictment and conviction of the petitioners for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Now, the only question which requires consideration is the quantum of sentence handed down to the petitioners by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court. 10. After examining the record, I have not been able to discover any infirmity in the order of conviction, passed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the appellate Court, to warrant interference in revision. But for the reasons stated hereunder, I propose to alter the sentence. 11. 10. After examining the record, I have not been able to discover any infirmity in the order of conviction, passed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the appellate Court, to warrant interference in revision. But for the reasons stated hereunder, I propose to alter the sentence. 11. The occurrence took place about 40 years back in 1978 and the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners in 1994. Appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Court of Session in the year 1996. The accused-petitioners, therefore, had to face a criminal charge and defend a protracted criminal prosecution for all these years and bear the awful tension of a criminal conviction and also suffered detention in prison for about a month. Now, after about four decades when much water has already flown over the Ganges during all these years and the petitioners who are now in their evening phase of life, as one of them is of 86 years old and another one is of 73 years of age, and they have suffered the agony of long trial and also custody though for a short duration, as indicated above, it would not be appropriate to now send them to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentences for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, which are of a very short duration to run concurrently. 12. Penology has now undergone revolutionary changes with such greater accent on the reformation than on the corporal punishment of the offender law no longer runs after the blood of the offender with red teeth and claws. The accused, as already indicated, have suffered imprisonment for about a month, the real object of penal punishment has already been achieved and any further incarceration of the accused may only spoil the present harmonious position and would look like gladiatorial Justice. As such, the order of conviction deserves to be maintained reducing the period of sentence to the period already undergone at the same time affirming the sentence of fine. 13. As such, the order of conviction deserves to be maintained reducing the period of sentence to the period already undergone at the same time affirming the sentence of fine. 13. In view thereof, the revision petition is allowed in part and while upholding the conviction of petitioners, as recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners by learned trial Court for offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the fine. The petitioners are already on bail, they need not surrender. The petitioner Nos.2 & 4 Punia and Kaliya shall deposit the amount of fine, within a period of one month from today, failing which the State shall be at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law. Record of the case be sent back.