IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 195/2003 Jai Ram …….Revisionist Versus District & Sessions Judge, Champawat & Another ……Respondents Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. 21st September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2003, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2002, Jai Ram v. State. Vide the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal of the revisionist, preferred by him against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, and set aside the order of conviction and sentence for the offence of Section 379 IPC, but maintained the conviction of revisionist for the offence of Section 411 IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence awarded to the revisionist for the offence of Section 411 IPC by quashing the sentence of imprisonment and enhancing the sentence of fine from rupees one thousand to rupees ten thousand. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Brief Holder for the State and on perusal of the papers available on record, it appears that the pipeline measuring almost one and half kilometers, which was meant for the water supply, was uprooted and stolen by the revisionist in village Talla khaikote, who connected it with the pipeline of his house for carrying the water supply to his 2 home. The said pipeline was owned by the Jal Sansthan (a body of the State Government). The concerned official of the village reported the matter to the Jal Sansthan and thereafter an FIR was lodged. 3. The police investigated the matter and raided the premises of the revisionist. The pipes were recovered from the possession of the revisionist. Recovery memo was prepared. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel is that nowhere it is proved that the allegedly recovered water pipeline was the same, which was stolen from the village. This argument is completely untenable and cannot be accepted. There is formidable evidence in the trial court record that the pipeline, which was recovered from the possession of the revisionist, was the same which was stolen from the village. Needless to say that possession does not always mean the physical possession. No one can be expected to keep the stolen things always sticking to his chest. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the stolen pipeline was being used by the revisionist for carrying water supply to his home. 5. Although there is no use now to comment upon the finding of the learned Sessions Judge regarding his order of acquittal of the revisionist for the offence of Section 379 IPC, nevertheless, it is worthy of mention that the evidence is available in that regard too. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. 3 7. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for compliance. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 21.9.2011 Prabodh