The punishment for receiving stolen property under Section 411, IPC, is less than the punishment for committing theft under Section 380, IPC, and it is not appropriate for a court to impose a harsher sentence on a person convicted of receiving stolen property than on a person convicted of committing theft.

1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge , Ajmer, date the 9-8-1979, upholding the judgment passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ajmer (East) in criminal case No. 58/1976 dated the 30th June, 1978, whereby the petitioner, Samar Singh, was convicted for the offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-.

2. A first information report was lodged at police station Alwar Gate, Ajmer, on 12th May, 1975, stating that while Satyanarain, the complainant, returned from the village, where he had gone to enquire about the date of examination, his sister Sushila informed him that she had gone to Ramdeo Yadavs house on that day, at 10.30 a.m. to show ornaments purchased by her. When she came back after some time she saw that both her almirahas were opened and the ornaments were missing.

3. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused-petitioner Samar Singh. After the trial, petitioner Samar Singh has been convicted under Section 411, IPC., AS-MEN as mentioned above. Raju alias Rajkamal the principal accused, admitted his guilt. Raju was convicted under Section 380, IPC. and given benefit of probation of offenders Act. Consequently, Raju, the principal accused, was released on probation

4. The third accused Rameshwarlal, with whom, as alleged, Samar Singh petitioner pledged all the ornaments, had been acquitted by the Sessions Court.

5. It would not be necessary to narrate the entire facts and circumstances, and submissions, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, because ultimately, at the end of the arguments, the case was concentrated on the short point, which I would deal presently. It is common ground that the principal accused Rajkamal alias Raju, in this case, committed this is of property amounting to more than Rs. twenty thousand. When Raju, the 'principal accused, had been released on probation, it sounds very anomalous and unusual that the accused who took property from him, should be sentenced to one year. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the Additional Sessions Judge, that receiving stolen property is a more heinous offence than to commit theft. The legislature, in its wisdom, provided that a person who is found guilty for committing theft, should be punched upto 7 years if the theft is committed in any building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property. The various punish men's provided under Sections 379, 380, 381, 382, and 383, IPC range from 3 years to 7 yea s and 10 years In comparison it, an accused who is punished under Section 4 IPC, can only be punished with imprisonment for either description for which the term may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Rajkamal alias Raju, the principal accused, was convicted under Section 380. IPC which is punishable upto 7 years. It was, therefore, not proper for the Sessions Court to mention that a convict under Section 380,IPC punishable with 7 years, has committed a minor offence in comparison to Samar Singh, the petitioner, the receiver of the stolen property, who was convicted under Section 411, IPC

6. It is true that for granting probation, there are so many factors and, therefore, probation could have been granted in a given case.

7. Mr. Chowdhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that there are grave contradictions in the case, because, firstly, whereas the FIR was registered on 12th May, 1975, evidence was recorded on 11th May, 1975. The learned public Prosecutor showed me police diary which also contains such contradiction, because at the beginning, the date mentioned is 11th May, 1975, but after writing FIR the date mentioned is 12th May, 1975. In addition to the above, it appears that the date 11th May, 1975 has been made as 12th May 1975 later on, in the diary and altered as such. The learned Public