JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner challenging the judgment dated 26.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar in Criminal Appeal No.18/2008 (25/2007) whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has affirmed the judgment dated 25.9.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar in Criminal Case No.307/2000 convicting and sentencing the petitioner as below :

Section 457, IPC	One Year's S.I.and a fine of Rs. 1000/- In default to further undergo one month's S.I.
Section 380, IPC	One Year's S.I.and a fine of Rs. 1000/- In default to further undergo one month's S.I.

3. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.4. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that one Indraj filed a written report at P.S. Rawatsar with the allegation that in the night intervening 24.11.2000 and 25.11.2000, somebody broke open the locks of his shop situated at Mistri Market, Kikraliya and committed theft of cash box and other articles including one golden bangle, one golden ring etc. On this report, FIR No.301/2000 was registered for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and investigation commenced. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and co-accused Ram Kumar. During the pendency of the trial, co-accused Ram Kumar absconded and, therefore, the proceedings of trial were separated. At the trial, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents in support of its case. The statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the allegations.5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above, vide judgment dated 25.9.2007. The appeal preferred by the petitioner too has been rejected by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 26.6.2012. Hence, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgments as well as his conviction.6. Assailing the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been linked in this case simply on the basis of recovery of certain articles (automobile spare parts etc.) It is submitted that the recovery has been effected from an open place accessible to all. It is also submitted that the recovery has been effected on the basis of an information alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the investigating officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but the said information and the recovery emanating on the strength thereof are not admissible in evidence. It is submitted that the information which was given to the investigating officer by the petitioner was recorded at 2:45 PM on 1.12.2000. Prior to that, the same information was given by the co-accused Ram Kumar to the investigating officer at 2:15 PM. It is further submitted that on the basis of two information, two separate recoveries have been effected but the place from where the recoveries have been made is the same. It is thus submitted that it is obvious that the recovery which has been shown to have been made at the instance of the petitioner is concocted and since the evidence cannot be read against the petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the trial court is absolutely illegal. It is further submitted that the first informant while giving the written report to the police did not mention about the theft of any spare parts but subsequently, the spare parts which have been recovered at the instance of the co-accused have been shown to be stolen articles but without any basis whatsoever. He, therefore, prayed that the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial court and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document