P.K.Jain - (1.) HEARD Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.GA for State.
(2.) THE revisionists Viswanath and Dhyani were convicted by the trial court for an offence under Section 411, l.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1980 preferred by them before the learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur failed and the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the revisionists was upheld. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.1.1983 passed by the appellate court, the revisionists have preferred the present revision. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that P.W. 6 Vijay Bahadur Nigam who held identification proceeding of the alleged stolen articles, said to have been recovered from the possession of the revisionists, admitted that he had not given any direction to anybody to bring similar articles to be mixed with the stolen articles alleged to have been recovered. The contention is that in the circumstances, evidence of identification cannot be relied upon. I have been taken through the statement of P.W. 6. There is specific statement that similar articles were mixed while holding test identification proceedings and similar article was brought by the contractor. It is no where laid down that the article to be mixed with the article alleged to have been recovered shall be arranged by the Magistrate holding identification proceeding. Normally there is a contractor to bring such articles. Therefore, the admission of P.W. 6 that he had not directed anybody to bring similar articles is of no avail to the revisionists. It has also been contended that P.W. 2 Rani Bahu admitted that she did not have three pairs of pawnpost. She has only one. This admission of P.W. 2 is also of no consequence as only one pawnpost was said to have been recovered. Pawnpost alleged to have been recovered from one of the revisionists was correctly identified by her during the identification proceedings as well as during the trial.
(3.) THERE is no illegality in the finding recorded by the courts below. The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.;