A statement of the accused that he had kept the stolen property with a certain person is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if it relates distinctly to the fact discovered, which is the recovery of the property.

( 1 ) THE applicant, Mohammad Ilyas, was convicted by a first class Judicial Magistrate of partabgarh of an offence under Section 411, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The decision was affirmed by the Additional Civil and Sessions judge, Partabgarh, and the accused has coma up to this Court in revision. The case which the courts below have found against him is that he dishonestly retained six watches which were stolen on the night between 8th and 9th November 1949, from the shop of Abdul Raoof knowing or having reason to believe that they were stolen property.

( 2 ) THE report in respect of the theft was lodged by Abdul Raoof on 9th November 1949, at partabgarh Kotwali. The evidence indicated that on 16th November 1949, Vidyadhar, head constable, who was in charge of the Macandrew Ganj outpost was informed by the complainant that Muhammad Ilyas was trying to dispose of a watch at the house of a prostitute in Partabgarh at an inordinately low pries. He, therefore, proceeded to the house and took possession of the watch (EX. l) and though the accused protested that it belonged to him, he effected Ilyass arrest.

( 3 ) AS regards Ex. 1, it was eventually found that it was not part of the stolen property. It was proved, however by reliable evidence: (1) That Ilyas while under arrest disclosed to Vidyadhar that he had kept six watches with one Narendra Bahadur at the latters hotel; (2) That he accompanied the head constable to the place and on reaching there, asked Narendra Bahadur to produce the watches; and (3) That a bundle containing watches was brought out by Narendra bahadur in consequence of Ilyass request and handed over to the head constable.

( 4 ) TWO contentions are urged on behalf of the applicant: (l) That since the statement of Ilyas that he had kept the watches with Narendra Bahadur did not lead to the discovery, that statement could not be proved on account of the prohibition against such a procedure contained in Section 27, Evidence Act, the suggestion of the applicants learned counsel being that if the above statement is excluded from evidence, the recovery of the bundle containing the watches would be recovery from the possession of Narendra Bahadur and not from the possession of the applicant, and (2) That the identification proceedings in respect of the watches were defective and the courts below, therefore, were not justified in holding that the watches recovered by Yidyadhar were the watches which were stolen from the shop of Abdul Raoof on the night between the 8th and 9th November 1949.

( 5 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is now authoritatively laid down by the Privy council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, 74 I. A. 65: (A. I. R. (34) 1947 P. C. 67 : 48 Cr. L. J. 538) that the words fact discovered occurring in Section 27, Evidence Act, embrace the place from which the object is produced, the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. The argument that the aforesaid words are merely descriptive of the physical object produced was repelled and the view expressed in Sukkan v. Emperor, 10 Lab. 283: (A. I. R. (16) 1929 Lah. 344 : 30 Cr. L. J. 414 F. B.) and Ganu Chandra v. Emperor, 56 Bom. 172: (A. I. R. (19) 1932 Bom. 286: 33 Cr. L. 3. 396) was approved of while that taken by the Pull Bench of the Madras High Court in In re. Athappa, Goundan, I. L. R. (1937) Mad. 695 : (A. I. R. (24) 1937 Mad. 618: 38 Cr. L. J. 1027 F. B.) was overruled. In the fall Bench case of the Lahore High Court to which reference was made by their Lordships, it was held that a statement of the accused that he had pledged the property with the person from whose possession it was subsequently recovered was admissible under Section 27,evidence Act, while the rest of the statement which constituted a confession and in which it was stated that the accused had removed the karas and had pushed the boy into the well was r