S. C. MOHAPATRA, J, J.

( 1 ) CONVICTION under Section 412 I. P. C. and sentence to undergo R. I. for ten years is the grievance of the appellant who is on bail.

( 2 ) SO far as appellant is concerned, prosecution case is that he was in possession of a tape- recorder which was identified to be stolen property in a dacoity committed on 17-4-1983.

( 3 ) APPELLANT denied the recovery and pleaded not guilty.

( 4 ) TRIAL Court, on the finding that tape-recorder, the stolen property was found to be in a broken suit case to be recovered on the basis of Prasad Behera v. State of U. P. one of the accused leading to such recovery immediately on his arrest, held that accused is guilty of the offence.

( 5 ) COMING to the question of sentence, I find absolutely no proportion of the punishment with the crime committed which seems to be arbitrary. There is no reason why maximum sentence of ten years would be imposed on the appellant. However, this is not material to be delved further since I am inclined to acquit the appellant.

( 6 ) THAT the tape-recorder is stolen property is beyond any reasonable doubt. It is also well proved that it is connected with dacoity committed and the same was rec