JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - The nine Petitioners and several other persons were jointly tried for offences under Sections 457/380/411, Indian Penal Code and Section 414, Indian Penal Code, by a First Class Magistrate of Balasore who acquitted one of them and convicted the remaining (18) persons and sentenced them to undergo various terms of imprisonment and to pay various amounts of fine. An of them appealed to the Sessions Judge of Balasore but one of them died during the pendency of the appeal and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence passed on three of the Appellants and acquitted them, and convicted the remaining 14 persons. Of these 14 persons only 9 have filed the present revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. In village Moto, within Chandbali Police Station of Balasore District, there is a rich (sic) family consisting of its kartha, Niranjan Sahu and 45 other members. They were living in a two storeyed residential house. The family had extensive money and paddy lending business and used to advance loans on the security of gold and silver ornaments which were kept in a strong room of the house. At the time of advancing loans on such ornaments a serial number was given to each ornament and a slip bearing that number was tied to the same, and corresponding entries were also made in the account books. The affluent circumstances of the family and their keeping large amounts of gold and silver ornaments in their house attracted the cupidity of the people of the locality and during the night of 15th/16th January, 1961 a gang of burglars entered the house after pulling out some of the iron railings of the windows and decamped with a large amount of booty. One of the inmates of the house named Amulya Kumar Sahu (p.w. 1) went to Chandbali Police Station, lodged an F.I.R. (ext. 1) on 16-1-1961 at about 8 a.m. The Officer-in-Charge immediately visited the spot, found marks of violence on the window leaves and the iron railings and also found the trunks and boxes lying strewn about in a pell-mell condition. The account books of the Sahu family showing a list of various ornaments pledged with them were also stolen from the house. The account books of the Sahu family showing a list of various ornaments pledged with them were also stolen from the house. During the course of the investigation, the police arrested several suspects and on the statements made by them, they recovered money and ornaments and other stolen properties. A test identification parade was held by the Block Development Officer in respect of these stolen properties which belonged to the Sahu family (p.ws. 1 and 2): As regards the pledged ornaments that were recovered no test identification parade was held though the pledgers gave evidence in Court and claimed to have identified them as having been pledged by them with the Sahu family. Some adverse comment was made against the conduct of the Police Officers in keeping these stolen ornaments with them for nearly a month, while camping in village Moto during the course of their investigation, and it was suggested that during this long period many of the so-called pledgers must have been given ample opportunities of seeing these ornaments and consequently their subsequent identification in Court should not be believed. It would certainly have been much better if soon after the seizure of these articles the police had sent them to the Court. The question ultimately depends on whether the evidence given by the pledgers in Court, identifying those ornaments as their own, can be accepted or not. One significant fact to be noticed is that at the time of the recovery of many of these ornaments slips, containing the serial number given to them by the Sahu family at the time of taking pledge, were also found along with the ornaments. The account books were also traced out subsequently by the police and by comparing the numbers found on the slips attached to the ornaments with the numbers as entered in the account books (exts. 2 to 5) there was no difficulty in recognizing these articles as those pledged with the Sahu family by the pledgers. I shall deal with this matter in greater detail while discussing the case against each of the Petitioners. 3. Mr. R.C. Misra for the Petitioners quite candidly conceded that the commission of burglary in the house of the Sahu family was beyond doubt. I shall deal with this matter in greater detail while discussing the case against each of the Petitioners. 3. Mr. R.C. Misra for the Petitioners quite candidly conceded that the commission of burglary in the house of the Sahu family was beyond doubt. His argument was confined mainly to an attack on the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the recovery of these properties from the places where they were pointed out, and also as regards the evidence of identification to establish that they were stolen properties. Must of the articles were recovered on the basis of the statements made by the Petitioners themselves to the Police Officers giving full information about the places where they had concealed the same. Then the Petitioners took the police parties to those places and produced the articles which were found either buried under ground or concealed under a bush, or kept inside a tank. The trial Court quite properly said that these statements would be admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The lower appellate Court, however, has not clearly stated that he was also agreeing with the trial Court's view as regards the admissibility of these statements and also his placing reliance on them, though there are certain passages in his judgment which would appear to indicate that the was inclined to take that view. There can be no doubt about the admissibility of these statements u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. It is true that apart from making those statements the accused persons themselves took the police party to the places of concealment and produced the incriminating articles. Though there were some earlier decisions to the effect that under such circumstances discovery of the articles was not due to the statements made by the accused persons but to their subsequent conduct in taking the police party to the places of concealment and producing the articles, and as such they were not admissible see L.L.R. 6 All 509 and ILR 10 Bom 595 -later decisions have not accepted this view. In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pershadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held (following AIR 1947 P.O. 67) that such statements would be admissible even though the subsequent recovery took place at the instance of the accused himself. 4. Mr. In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pershadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held (following AIR 1947 P.O. 67) that such statements would be admissible even though the subsequent recovery took place at the instance of the accused himself. 4. Mr. Misra however contended that the Investigating Police Officer alone has spoken about the alleged statements made by the accused persons prior to the recovery of these articles and that the search witnesses have not corroborated them in this respect. But as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the search lists themselves contained entries to show that prior to the recovery the suspected persons made statements indicating the places where they were concealed, and that the actual recovery of the articles took place only thereafter. Thus the evidence of the Investigating Police Officer on this point which was fully corroborated by contemporaneous entries in the search list was acceptable as true. 5. I shall now deal with the case of each the nine Petitioners: <(i) Krupasindhu Saku: - The evidence of the Investigating Officer (p.w. 167) is to the effect that this Petitioner told him that he had concealed his share of the booty in the house of one Gopi Behera. He then took the Sub-Inspector of Police to the deserted house of Gopi, dug out some earth from the floor of the room and brought out some articles including gold and silver ornaments. One of the articles recovered was a wrist watch and another was a cigarette lighter. These two were identified by the P.W. 1 as his property stolen by the culprits. It was urged that the house of Gopi Behera was deserted, that some other person might have concealed the articles there and the though Krupasindhu might have hall knowledge of the place of concealment, it would not suffice to show that he was actually in possession of those articles. This argument cannot stand if his statement before the police is held to be admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. That statement clearly shows that the Petitioner himself had concealed the articles there. It was then alleged that wrist watches and cigarette lighters are articles of common use and the evidence on their identification cannot be held to be conclusive. I am unable to accept this argument. That statement clearly shows that the Petitioner himself had concealed the articles there. It was then alleged that wrist watches and cigarette lighters are articles of common use and the evidence on their identification cannot be held to be conclusive. I am unable to accept this argument. Even though these articles may be in common use a person who has been using them for some time will be in a position to identify them and I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the two lower Courts regarding the acceptance of the evidence of P.W. 1 on this point. It must therefore, be held to have been satisfactorily established that 7 days after the commission of the burglary this Petitioner was found in possession of some of the stolen properties, for which he had no satisfactory explanation to give he has contended himself with mere denial. (ii) Benudhar Naik: - The evidence against this Petitioner is of the same type as that against Krupasindhu Sahu. He also told the Investigating Officer (p.w. 167) about the place of concealment of his share of the (sic) the police party to the deserted house of Gopi Behera and produced gold and silver ornaments after digging them from the ground. They were identified by the pledgers of the Sahu's family and the slips found on those articles bore numbers which tallied with the numbers given in the account books (exts. 2 to 5) as regards the names of the pledgers. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. (iii) Pararnananda Naik: - This Petitioner also told the Investigating Officer (p.w. 167) on 27-1-1961 that he had concealed his share of the booty in his bad, then took the police party to his bari, dug out some earth from the ground and brought out a bag which contained ornaments containing slips giving the numbers of the articles pledged. The pledgers also have given evidence identifying these articles. The fact that the bari was accessible to people from outside is quite immaterial because the Petitioner had admitted before the police that he has concealed the ornaments these and his possession of the stolen articles must therefore be taken to have been established beyond doubt; and as he was unable to account for them the inference of his guilt is obvious. (iv) Pagal Majhi, son of Bhaban Majhi of Sahubhusani: This Petitioner told the Investigating Police Officer (p.w. 167) that he kept his share of the stolen property concealed in his bari, took the police party to his brinjal garden, and brought out an earthen pot wrapped in a cloth, inside which several ornaments were found. The pledgers have identified them as their properties. Slips bearing the numbers assigned to them at the time of their pledging were found along with those articles. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. (v) Babaji Palayi: - This Petitioner also told the Investigating Police Officer (p.w. 167) that he had concealed his share of the booty inside a tank, took the police party to the edge of the water and brought out a gunny bag from inside a (sic) bush containing several ornaments of silver with slips attached indicating the numbers assigned to them at the time of their pledging. These were also subsequently identified by the pledgers. (vi) Ekadasi Patro: - Another Investigating Officer questioned this Petitioner on 4-2-1961. The Petitioner himself produced before him a gold nose-ring, a gold chain and a gold earring. The Petitioner admitted in his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure that these articles were seized from his house but stated that they belonged to his mother, but some of the pledgers (p.w. 65,-66 and 164) claimed them to be theirs. A special mark of identification was found on the gold chain, as stated by P.W. 164, namely a welding mark. It was open to the two Courts of fact to accept the evidence of these witnesses and disbelieve the statement of this Petitioner that they belonged to his mother. (vii) Ghanashyam Khillar: - The evidence of P.W. 160 is to the effect that a gold nose-fly and a gold nose-ring were recovered from the house of this Petitioner. The recovery of the ornaments was admitted but the Petitioner claimed the ornaments as belonging to his mother. But P.W. 44 identified the gold nose-fly as one of the ornaments pledged by him with the Sahu family. This evidence was accepted by this two Courts of fact and I see no reason to take a different view. The recovery of the ornaments was admitted but the Petitioner claimed the ornaments as belonging to his mother. But P.W. 44 identified the gold nose-fly as one of the ornaments pledged by him with the Sahu family. This evidence was accepted by this two Courts of fact and I see no reason to take a different view. (viii) Bhagawan Khillar: - This Petitioner also took the Investigating Officer (p.w. 160) to his house on 4-2-1961 and produced six silver ornaments from the thatch of his kitchen and danda ghar. He stated in Court that they belonged to his wife. But P.W. 58 and 114 identified M.Os. 470, 471 and 481 (M.O. 481) was also identified by P.W. 1 as belonging to him both in the test identification parade and in Court. In this case also, the evidence relating to identification has established the case against him beyond all doubt. (ix) Pagal Majhi, son of Panu Majhi of Harendrapur: - This Petitioner also stated before the Investigating Officer (p.w. 160) that he had concealed his share of the stolen articles and then took the Investigating Officer to the bari of his house from where he brought out an earthen pot covered with straw, kept concealed in a straw heap. The pot contained 11 ornaments and slips containing numbers were also attached to them. Some of them were identified by the pledgers (p.ws. 21, 53 and 130). One of the gold ornaments (M.O. 336) was identified by the informant P.W. 1 as belonging to the Sahu family, both before the Block Development Officer and before the Court. In his case the evidence is satisfactory. 6. The learned lower Courts convicted Petitioners Ekadasi Patra, Ghanashyam Khillar, Bhagan Khillar and Pagal Majhi, son of Panu Majhi of Narendrapur u/s 414, Indian Penal Code and the remaining five Petitioners u/s 457/380, Indian Penal Code. But I think the mere appropriate section in an these cases will be 411, Indian Penal Code because while their possession of the stolen articles within a few days of the commission of theft is well established, there is no evidence to justify the inference that they had actually participated in the commission of theft. 7. But I think the mere appropriate section in an these cases will be 411, Indian Penal Code because while their possession of the stolen articles within a few days of the commission of theft is well established, there is no evidence to justify the inference that they had actually participated in the commission of theft. 7. Coming to the question of sentence, I would, while altering the conviction of Petitioner Bhagawan from 414, Indian Penal Code to 411, Indian Penal Code maintain the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment passed on him he being an old man of 70 years. 8. As regards Petitioners Pagal Majhi son of Bhaban Majhi of Sashubhusuni and Pagal Majhi son of Panu Majhi of Narendrapur, and Petitioners Paramanand and Benudhar are concerned while altering their convictions also from Section 457/380, Indian Penal Code to 411, Indian Penal Code, I would reduce the sentence passed on them to six months rigorous imprisonment each. The sentence of fine passed on each of them is set aside. 9. Petitioner Ekadasi Patra was said to be only 22 years of age; and Petitioner Ghanashyam Khillar was said to be aged 20 years. Petitioner Babaji Palayi was said to be aged only 23 years and Petitioner Krupasindhu Sahu was aged only 22 years. These are all immature youths who appear to have fallen into temptation and thereby became guilty receivers of stolen properties; but the moment the police started investigation and tackled them, they produced the articles. In the case of these Petitioners it will, I think, be appropriate to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. While therefore altering the conviction of these four Petitioners (Ekadasi Patra, Babaji Palayi, Ghanashyam Khillar and Krupasindhu Sahu) to one u/s 411, Indian Penal Code. I set aside the sentence passed on them and direct, u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, that they shall be released or their entering into bonds for Rs. 500/-. each, with two sureties of Rs. 250/- each, to appear and receive the sentence when caned upon, during a period of one year from the date of execution of the bonds, and in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 10. Subject to the aforesaid modification and the conviction and sentences the revision petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed