Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) SUKHDEV Singh along with Harjit Singh and Daya Nand was convicted under Section 411 IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. Appeal was preferred by him and the same was dismissed on 18.1.1995 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.
(2.) THE present revision petition was listed for motion hearing on 7.8.1995 and by that time period of six months had lapsed and the petitioner had undergone the entire sentence. Therefore, record reveals that nowhere the sentence was suspended and finally on 8.1.1996, the present revision petition was admitted. I have heard Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, counsel for the Criminal Revision No. 451 of 1995 2 petitioner and Mr. Amit Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
(3.) THE Courts below have held that the recovery of stolen articles was effected from the petitioner. Prosecution has examined six witnesses. Their evidence has been appreciated. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the defence witnesses examined by the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while affirming the conviction, held as under: "....None of the appellants has explained the possession of the stolen property nor any item in this case has been claimed by them. The identity of the stolen articles has been duly established by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The complainant while appearing in Court had identified the case property recovered in this case to be belonging to him. The FIR contains the particulars of the case property and their identification marks alleged to have been stolen from the house of the complainant in his absence. No motive or ill -will has been alleged against this witness to depose against the appellants". Reasoning given and the findings returned are just. Therefore, no interference of revisional Court is called for.;