S.J.HYDER, J. - (1.) LALAI applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 T.P.C. by the Judicial Magis­trate First Class. He was sentenced to un­dergo R. 1, for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of pay­ment of fine, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appeal preferred by Lallai was dismissed by the Fourth Additional Ses­sions Judge, Mirzapur. He has now pre­ferred this revision.
(2.) BETWEEN the night of February 10 and 11. 1979, 600 metres of electric wire was stolen from the Transmission line be­tween villages Gorsar and Akorhi, police station Vindhyachal in the district of Mir­zapur. A first information report of this theft was lodged by P.W. 5 Sri Jagnarain Misra, Assistant Engineer. On the basis of the report, the case was investigated by Rama Shanker Singh, S.I. while the matter was still under investigation, the applicant was arrested by the investigating Officer on a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, After his ar­rest, he confessed his complicity in the of the electric wire and offered to have the stolen wire recovered. The Investigating Officer Rarna Shankar Singh accompanied by the recovery witnesses, proceeded to the house of the applicant and recovered 25 Kgs. of high transmission wire on the point­ing out of the applicant. This, in short, is the prosecution case.
(3.) NOW , Section 115, Illustration (a), inter alia, provides that if a stolen article is recovered from the possession of a person, the court may presume that such person is either a thief or a receiver of a stolen goods. The question which calls for consideration in this revision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the wire al­leged to have been recovered from the pos­session of the applicant was a stolen article.;