1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2009 Tukaram Bhimrao Ghorpade & anr. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis, Advocate for the Applicants Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application has challenged the order and judgment of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Patan, District: Satara dated 3rd March 2009 convicting the Applicants herein under Sections 380 and 457 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2009 dated 19th August 2009 dismissing the Appeal therefrom. The Applicants Advocate states that the fine has not been paid. The prosecution in this case had examined 5 witnesses. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence, more particularly the evidence of the adjoining shop owner who heard the noise of opening the shutter and saw the incident. The 2 Applicants had been arrested immediately and the articles which were stolen were recovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has been the case of the Applicants that the recovery is improperly made, because the Investigating Officer did not submit himself to personal search. The recovery has not been challenged on any other ground. The observation of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is that the incident was seen and resulted in the immediate seizure of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly considered that the identification parade was not necessary. 2.It is also argued on behalf of the Applicants that the complainant should have shown that the articles were owned and possessed by the complainant. There is nothing in law for the complainant to prove the ownership or possession of the stolen articles. Hence that argument has been rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge. 3.Further the Sessions Judge has considered correctly, that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has taken a lenient view while imposing the sentence. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4.The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)