Jagmohan Lal Sinha, J. - (1.) This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 9th November, 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicants under Sec. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: - On 22nd February, 1978 at about 9.30 A. M. the applicants committed theft of soft coke from the railway compound Bareilly junction. They were arrested when they reached the gate. Devki Nandan applicant was found in possession of 10 kg. of soft coke and Salig Ram applicant was found in possession of 19 kg. of soft coke. On these allegations the two applicants were prosecuted under Sec. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Both the applicants were found guilty by the trial Court and convicted and sentenced to one year's R. I. each. Aggrieved against it they filed an appeal in the Court of Session which resulted in dismissal; hence this revision, which was admitted on question of sentence only.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that, in view of the fact that the property recovered from the possession of the applicant is of a petty nature and the applicants are not previous convict, it will not be expedient to send them to jail. Learned Counsel added that both the applicants are railway employees and as a result of the conviction recorded against them they will lose the employment and that by itself would be quite a severe punishment. Learned Counsel accordingly urged that this Court may take lenient view on the question of sentence. I think there is substance in the argument. As already stated one of the applicants was found in possession of ten kg. soft coke and the other J 9 kg. of soft coke. The soft coke was recovered from their possession when they reached the gate of the Railway siding. They were thus not able even to derive any benefit by the commission of the theft. It does not appear from the judgment of either of the courts below that they are previous convicts. If it is a fact that the applicants are railway employees, as stated in the memorandum of revision, it cannot be gain said that they shall suffer quite a severe punishment because of their being thrown out of the employment in consequence of the conviction recorded against them. Looking to the facts of the case and surrounding circumstances it appears desirable that the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to the applicants is altered to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone together with a fine of Rs. 200/ - each.;