Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sec. 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

2. On the night of the 12th and 13th September 1958, a theft was committed in the house of Kishun Singh (P.W. 1), and a box and some utensils including a lota were taken away by the thieves. Subsequently, the lota was recovered from the house of the petitioner and was identified both at the test Identification parade and in the Court by P. W. 1. as his lota.

3. The only contention urged by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the lota was in exclusive possession of the petitioner. It was pointed out that the house from which this lota was recovered was occupied both by the petitioner and his son, and the argument advanced is that when the house was in joint possession of both father and son, the prosecution should have proved that this lota was recovered from a place which was in: exclusive possession of the petitioner. It was urged that there is no, evidence to that effect. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that the joint posses