JUDGMENT

Nanavutty, J - This is an application for revision of an appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Sitapur upholding the judgment of Mr. Nigham, Magistrate of the First Class at Sitapur, convicting the applicant Jai Narain of an offence under Section 457, I.P.C., and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default to undergo a further term of three months' rigorous imprisonment. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. The grounds set forth in this application for revision really challenge the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court and are therefore not proper grounds for a criminal revision. The applicant has been rightly convicted of an offence under Section 457, I.P.C. The facts, as found established by the lower appellate Court, are that the applicant Jai Narain was found in possession of stolen property at about 2 a. m. on the morning of 13th January 1932. That very night a burglary had been committed in the shop of Kamta Prasad in Mohalla Thompsonganj in the town of Sitapur. Illus. (a), Section 114, Evidence Act, lays down that the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen. The applicant was found in possession of the stolen property a couple of hours after the commission of the burglary and was therefore rightly convicted of an offence under Section 457, I.P.C.

2. The only other plea that was urged on behalf of the applicant was that the sentence passed upon him was too severe. In view of the truculent and unrepentant attitude taken up by the applicant, and in view of the circumstances of the case as set forth in the judgments of the lower appellate Court and of the trial Court, I am not disposed to take a lenient view of the conduct of the applicant in this ease. The burglary was well-planned with the assistance of the ser-vants at the shop of Kamta Prasad. The amount of property stolen is very large and therefore I see no reason to reduce the sentence passed upon the applicant. I accordingly reject this application for revision and uphold the conviction and sentence passed upon the applicant Jai Narain.