A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two applications in criminal revision are connected with each other in the sense that the same question of law arises in them. They can, therefore be disposed of by the same judgment.

( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision No. 55 of 1957 is on behalf of Rajjaua. He was convicted by a Magistrate first Class of Fatehpur under Section 411. P. C. , and was sentenced to nine months R.. His conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, but he reduced the sentence to six months R.. The facts found against him by the two Courts are that in the night between the 15th and 16th of July 1956 certain ornaments marked Exs. I to VIII in the case were stolen from the house of Jagdeo. On 19-7-1956 the house of the applicant was searched and these stolen ornaments were recovered from a room in the exclusive possession of the applicant where they were lying buried under the ground. The applicant denied the factum of recovery and did not offer any explanation as to how the stolen ornaments came into his possession,

( 3 ) IN the other case, criminal revision No. 1573 of 1958, Roshan was convicted by a Magistrate first Class of Meerut under Section 411. P. C. and senten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document