IMPORTANT POINT
Where recoveries from the house of the accused are not disputed and they are identified by complainant as his own and there is no proof on record on behalf of accused that those recovered articles belongs to him then these articles would be stolen articles.

JUDGMENT

G.K. Sharma, J. This revision petition has been referred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Alwar, dated 22.4.1978, where by upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to Brij Lal, petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No 2, Alwar for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C.

2. The facts of this case in brief are that in the mid night of 27th July, 1975, and 28th July, 1975, a theft was committed in the shop of complainant Kishan Lal and 426 metre cloth, 281/2 pairs of 'Dhotis' 10 kg. sugar and cash Rs. 7/- were stolen away. On this report the police registered the case and investigated the matter. During investigation the police arrested Bhagwana. On interrogation Bhagwana informed that the stolen articles are at the house of Brij Lal. Bhagwana who was in custody with the police in some other case gave this information about Brij Lal. On this information the house of Brijlal was searched and from his house some cloth, ornaments, utencils and sewing machine etc, were seized. With regard to the theft in this case some cloth and 13 pairs of 'Dhotis' were seized. After this Brij Lal, was arrested. The identification of the articles was done by Krishan Lal, who identified the articles to be his. After the investigation the police submitted the challan against Bhagwana, Ramesh, Kalyan and Brij Lal. After hearing the arguments before charge the learned Magistrate did not find any case against Ramesh and Kalyan. Hence both these persons were discharged. Bhagwana and Brij Lal were charge sheeted. After recording the evidence and hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate did not find accused Bhagwana guilty of the charge framed against him and acquitted him. The case against Brij Lal was found established and he was found guilty for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 months R.I. and the fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine it was ordered that he should undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

3. Against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, dated 21st March, 1977, Brijlal, preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Alwar and the appeal was disposed of by the A.D.J. on 22nd April, 1978, whereby upholding the conviction and sentence of Brjjlal. Against this judgment Brijlal bas preferred this present revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the accused Brij lal, was sent to jail after the judgment of A.D.J. Alwar, on 22nd April, 1978, and he was released from jail on 12th September, 1978. Thus, he had completed the sentence awarded to him. The learned Public Prosecutor, has brought to my notice that after his conviction by the, Additional Sessions Judge, he preferred this revision petition and by the order of this court dated 19th July, 1978, he was ordered to be released on surety and the sentence was suspended. In spite of this suspension Brijlal, remained in jail upto 12th September, 1978, it means he was in jail in connection with some other case. Thus, it cannot be said that Brijlal, has completed the sentence awarded to him in this case.

5. I have looked into this aspect of this case and also be heard both the learned counsel on merits of this case. The recovery of the cloths and other articles from the house of accused Brijlal is not disputed. Brijlal, his own statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has admitted that police seized clothes and other articles from his house". His contentions is that these articles were not stolen articles but they belong to him. Thus, the recovery of the articles from the house of accused Brijlal, is not disputed. The point is whether these articles were stolen articles, on whether they belong to complainant Kishanlal or not. On this aspect I have persued the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Identification of these recovered articles was done by complaint Krishanlal and he identified that they belong to him. There is no proof on the record 00 behalf of