1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2006 Avinash s/o Prabhakar Jadhav, Aged 35 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Gangapur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. A.S. Barlota, Adv h/f Mr. S.K. Barlota, Advocate for the applicants Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed by the original accused No.7, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2005, which was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The other six accused were charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the present applicant was charged under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for receiving the stolen property. 2. The incident of decoity took place during the night between 16 and 17th, September, 2004. The decoits took away cash as well as golden and silver ornaments from the complainant and his family members. Fortunately, on the very next day, almost all the decoits were arrested. Soon thereafter, they were interrogated and produced almost all the stolen articles. On 20th September, 2004, one of the accused, by name Paras, made a disclosure that he would be able to show to the police the person to whom he had given some of the stolen property. Accordingly, a panchnama was recorded, and 2 thereafter, the accused Paras led the police to the shop of the applicant. In presence of the panchas, accused pointed out to the applicant saying that he had received the articles from him. The applicant, thereafter, took out two golden ornaments and one silver ornament from his cupboard. This was done in presence of independent panchas, and, recorded the panchnama. The prosecution could prove successfully these panchnamas and the Courts below concurrently held that the evidence against the applicant in respect of the seizure of golden and silver ornaments was quite trustworthy. Subsequent to that, the complainant’s family members, identified the ornaments, seized from the applicant, before the Court. In view of this, the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, especially as shown in Illustration-A to the Section, would allow the Court to presume that the applicant had received the stolen ornaments. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant contended that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant knew that the articles, which he had received from accused Paras, were stolen. However, since the recovery took place within four days from the date of incident and since the articles were still intact and could be identified by the complainant’s family members, the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act would arise against the applicant, and with the help of such presumption, the prosecution could succeed in proving the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, there is no possibility of setting aside concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant had committed offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant then submitted that the quantum of sentence may be reduced for mitigating circumstances, such as; the incident took place long back. Six years have so far passed. The applicant has undergone the rigours 3 of the trial, appeal and the present application. The applicant is a jeweler in a small town of Gangapur and deserved an opportunity of reform. The learned Judge of the trial Court awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to the applicant for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. I am told that the applicant has spend almost 57 days in custody during investigation, appeal and this revision. He submits that the applicant be shown leniency and his substantive sentence be reduced to the period which he has already undergone. Having regard to the mitigating circumstances numerated above, I am inclined to accept this submission. The revision is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period which he is already undergone. Rest of the impugned order passed by the Courts below shall stand. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/cra/81/06/30910