1. The appellant Govind Dipaji More has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment. He has appealed against this order of conviction and sentence.

2. The prosecution story is very brief indeed. Umedmal, who is a prosecution witness in this case, is a servant in the shop known by the name of Lakhmichand Dhanrupji and Company. Witness Mangilal is a partner, in this Shop. The shop carries on business in utensils and gold and silver ornaments. It is situated at Chunabhatti, Swadeshi Mill Road, Kurla.

The Incident, which is the subject-matter of the prosecution, occurred in the morning of 22-5-1955, at about 8 Oclock Umedmal and Mangilal were present in the shop. They were counting small cash. The cash box was lying nearby. At that time the appellant entered the shop. He had an open knife in his hand. At the point of the knife he demanded a sum of Rs. 40/- from Umedmal. Umedmal said that he did not possess that much amount.

Thereupon the appellant, with one hand of his, showed the knife to Umedmal and with his ot