ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This petition in revision has been filed by Sri Mahendra Pal Singh. The Petitioner along with Sri Ramesh Chand and Amar Singh was convicted u/s 457, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each for having committed house breaking by night in the godown of General Reserve Engineering Force Centre, Roorkee between 8 and 9-7-1965 and to have committed theft of 12 patromax lantern and 68 hair clipping machines. The Petitioner Mahendra Pal Singh was also convicted u/s 411 IPC and sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment for having dishonestly received or retained 12 Gas Lantern, 67 hair clipping machines and certain other articles knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. 2. Against that order of conviction two appeals were filed before the Sessions Judge, one by Ramesh Ghand and the other by Amar Singh. The se two appeals were allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and Ramiesh Ghand and Amar Singh were acquitted of the charge u/s 457, IPC. The third appeal was filed by the present Petitioner Mahendra Pal Singh which was only partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. The conviction and sentence u/s 457, IPC was set aside but the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 411, IPC was maintained. The sentence on this Count, however, was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment only. 3. Mahendra Pal Singh, therefore, has filed the instant petition in revision in this Court against his conviction u/s 411, IPC. 4. On 9-7-1965, in the morning at about 7 a.m. one Majit Singh, the Store keeper of General Reserve Engineering Force Centre, opened the go-down of his Centre. He discovered that the articles in the room were lying scattered. Majit Singh immediately made a report to Captain Swarn Singh who was incharge of the Centre and Captain Swarn Singh inspected the place and discovered that 12 patromax lanterns and 68 hair clipping machines had been removed. He made a report to the Station Officer, Roorkee. The Sub-Inspector R.S. Negi took up the investigation of the case and he proceeded to the spot immediately and interrogated the various chaukidars of the Centre including Ramesh Ghand, accused. He made a report to the Station Officer, Roorkee. The Sub-Inspector R.S. Negi took up the investigation of the case and he proceeded to the spot immediately and interrogated the various chaukidars of the Centre including Ramesh Ghand, accused. As a result of his interrogation of Ramesh Chand, the Sub-Inspector suspected Ramesh Chand and Amar Singh to be responsible for the theft, as they were keeping watch over the store room from which theft had been committed. Ramesh Chand was taken to the police station for further interrogation. It was alleged that Ramesh Chand made a confession before Captain Swarn Singh that theft had been committed by Amar Singh and Mahendra Pal Singh who had promised to pay Rs. 50/- to him and further that the stolen articles had been taken away by Mahendra Pal Singh to his house at village Siao, Police Circle Chandpur, district Bijnor by the train known as Howrah Express. Sub-Inspector R.S. Negi taking Ramesh Chand and a constable with him proceeded for Chandpur reaching there late in the night. On the following morning Sri M.M. Sarpal, Station Officer, Chandpur, Ramesh Chand and Sri Negi proceeded for village Siao and picked up Vijay Pal Singh, Allaha Diya and Mohammad Yahiya and Mohammad Ghani, public men, to witness the search and the recovery. When he interrogated Mahendra Pal Singh, the Petitioner informed the Sub-Inspector that the Petitioner could deliver the goods stolen from the General Reserve Engineering Force Centre, Roorkee. The Petitioner brought out from a kothri 12 patromax lantern, 67 hair clipping machines besides certain other accessories like mantles, ball b earings etc. Ex. Ka 6 is the recovery memo that was prepared by Sri Negi at the spot. The recovered articles were kept in sealed-packets. Thereafter Inspector Negi made search of the room of Amar Singh and made certain recoveries therefrom with which, however, I am no more concerned in this case. All the accused were charge-sheeted as a result of which they were convicted by the Judicial Officer, Roorkee, as mentioned above. 5. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that there was no legal evidence on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the three accused, namely, Mahendra Pal Singh, Ramesh Chand and Amar Singh, had committed house-breaking by night into the store-room of the Centre and committed theft there. 5. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that there was no legal evidence on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the three accused, namely, Mahendra Pal Singh, Ramesh Chand and Amar Singh, had committed house-breaking by night into the store-room of the Centre and committed theft there. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, proceeded to acquit all the three accused u/s 457, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter proceeded to observe that there was sufficient evidence against the Petitioner for his conviction u/s 411 IPC and for establishing the charge, that, he dishonestly received and retained the property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. Relying on the testimony of Sri R.S. Negi, M.M. Sarpal (P.Ws. 11 and 4) and also on the testimony of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 the learned Sessions Judge found that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that 12 patromax lantern, 67 hair clipping machines besides certain other accessories were recovered from the possession of Mahendra Pal Singh. The learned Sessions Judge has also accepted the evidence to the effect that Mahendra Pal Singh, the Petitioner, on being interrogated gave out that the stolen property was in his possession and subsequently he delivered the same to the Police Officers. The learned Sessions Judge then took the view that u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act the alleged statement of Mahendra Pal Singh leading to the discovery of stolen article was admissible in evidence. He took the view that such statement of the accused person would be admissible in evidence even though eventually it was the accused himself who produced the property. 6. In support of the revision petition Learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. Bahri has urged that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in making use of what has been described as the confession of Mahendra Pal Singh and also in taking the view that that statement of the Petitioner was admissible in evidence u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. From the facts given above it is obvious that there was no discovery of any stolen property in this case as a result of any statement of the Petitioner, Mahendra Pal Singh. From the facts given above it is obvious that there was no discovery of any stolen property in this case as a result of any statement of the Petitioner, Mahendra Pal Singh. The discovery, if any, was the result of the statement given by the co-accused Ramesh Chand when he had pointed out that the stolen properties were kept at the place of the Petitioner Mahendra Pal Singh. The statement of the accused in the custody of the police cannot be admissible unless it was covered by the exception provided for by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is the fact of the discovery that assures the correctness of the confession. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amin and Another Vs. The State, AIR 1958 All 293 . There were various questions gone into in that case with which I am not concerned at present. The observation made in that case which is relevant for the purposes of the instant case is in the following words: We are of the opinion that the recovery of these articles cannot be described as 'discovery' u/s 27, Indian Evidence Act. These articles were not recovered from any hidden place and in the normal course of business the investigating agency was bound to see them and taken them in possession without Amin making any statement of pointing them out. It has become the normal device of the investigating agency to turn an ordinary recovery into a discovery in order to utilise the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act against an accused person. After having obtained information through Ramesh Chand that the stolen property was lying with the Petitioner at his place no further confession on the part of the Petitioner was needed to enable the Police Officers to recover the stolen property. That being so, the recovery of the stolen property cannot be said to be the result of any statement made by the accused. It cannot then be a case of discovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not correct in making use of that statement of Mahendra Pal, Petitioner, against him as a piece of confession. 7. It cannot then be a case of discovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not correct in making use of that statement of Mahendra Pal, Petitioner, against him as a piece of confession. 7. It has then been urged that there is no reliable evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the room or the verandah in which the stolen properties were placed was in the exclusive possession of the Petitioner. It is undoubtedly correct that the prosecution evidence on that part of the case is not consistent. At any rate, there is no categorical assertion on the part of the prosecution that the Petitioner alone was in exclusive possession of the room or the verandah from which the properties were recovered. According to some of the prosecution witnesses another person, namely, Chhatrapal was also in occupation of that part of the building and according to the other prosecution witness the various other members of the family of the Petitioner were also living there. The view taken by this Court in the case of Kamta Prasad v. State 1960 AWR 525 is to the effect that in case several persons are in occupation of a room or building and recoveries are made from that room or building it is further necessary for the prosecution to establish as to which of the several occupants was really in possession of the stolen Properties. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the revisionist, therefore, must be accepted. 8. In the view that I have taken this revision petition is allowed, the Petitioner's conviction u/s 411, IPC and the sentence awarded to him are set aside. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charge u/s 411, IPC. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds.