MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD . Petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (for short 'appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal brought by the petitioner against judgment/order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana (for short 'trial Court'), convicting and sentencing the petitioner as under: - "Under Section 411 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Under Section 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Under Section 467 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Under Section 468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days."
(2.) THE appellate Court, however, reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and, instead, awarded him sentence as under: - "U/s 411 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 467 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days." The fact situation as noticed by the learned appellate Court is to the following effect: - "2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.2.2011 SI Jarnail Singh along with HC Pritpal Singh, HC Lakhbir Singh, HC Jasbir Singh were present at Jamalpur chowk in connection with patrolling and checking of bad characters/suspected persons. He received a secret information that Kuljit Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Manakwal, who used to steal the vehicles from the different areas of Punjab and used to sell the stolen vehicles. At present he is having a stolen car Scorpio red in colour and has fixed a forged number PB - 05K -2446 and has also got prepared forged RC. He is going from Samrala Chowk towards Chandigarh for selling the same car. Then on checking the vehicle, he was apprehended along with said car. On asking he disclosed his name as Kuljit Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of village Manakwal. An FIR was lodged. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court."
(3.) THE only contention put up on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the car in question was a stolen property and even its recovery from possession of the petitioner has remained unproved as witness of recovery memo has not come forward for being cross -examined, by the defence. It is also contended that the registration certificate of the car in question has remained unproved and for that reason even allegation of forgery has remained unestablished.;