Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) - By way of this revision, the petitioner Amarchand has approached' this Court assailing the judgment dated 8.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Cr. Appeal No. 25/2001, whereby the appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned 5 ACJM, Communal Riots Cases Pali in Cr. Case No. 163/1998, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC and sentencing him to suffer one year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fie, to further undergo five days additional simple imprisonment.
(2.) Shri Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged 10 the conviction of the petitioner on the following grounds : (1) The FIR of the alleged incident of theft dated 25.6.1998 was filed after a significant delay on 2.7.1998 against unknown persons. (2) The stolen motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ.M.5955 owned by the complainant had already been recovered at the Police Station Sojat City on 27.6.1998. Thus, the Police fraudulently projected the recovery of the very same motorcycle at the instance of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of the FIR No. 230/98. (3) The recovery of the stolen motorcycle, which has been shown at the instance of the petitioner is concocted and created. ' (4) The evidence of the witness Manjoor Ali could not have been utlized to link the petitioner with the alleged offence because Manjoor Ali did not disclose the number of the motorcycle, which the petitioner allegedly brought to his shop for repairs.
(3.) Thus, he urged that the conviction of the petitioner for the above offence is totally illegal and contrary to the material available on record. He thus prayed that revision deserves to be accepted and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.;