ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - The Applicants before this Court, Prem Raj and his wife Naraini, have been convicted, the first u/s 380 IPC and the second u/s 411 IPC and have been sentenced to 18 month's RI and three months' RI respectively. 2. According to the prosecution case, which has been accepted by the courts below, Sri Ram Murti, Secretary, District Board, Pilibhit, had kept Rs. 11,600/-in the form of currency notes in bundles. He had signed the first note of each bundle and had kept them in a bag (Ex. 2) which was placed in a box (Ex. 1). The box containing the money, which had been obtained as price of paddy crop sold by the complainant, was stolen. The complainant on coming back to his agricultural farm had discovered the theft. Suspicion having been directed towards, the peon Ram Charan, the peon was handed over to the police and interrogated. Ram Charan, who was also tried with the Applicants and convicted, took the police first to his own house, from where Rs. 4,500/- were recovered on his pointing out. Ram Charan then directed the attention of the police towards Prem Raj, another peon, who was looked for but found to be missing. Thereupon, the police, on the suggestion of Ram Charan, went to the village and house of Prem Raj. At that house, they found Smt. Nanhi, the mother of Prem Raj and Smt. Naraini, the wife of Prem Raj. When the Investigating Officer asked Smt. Nanhi about the stolen money, she said, according to an entry in the recovery memo (Ex. 9), that the money brought by her son was handed over to her and had been given by her to her daughter-in-law, Smt. Naraini, Applicant, to keep. Smt Nanhi brought out a key with which the lock of a Kotha was opened. After that, the Applicant Smt. Naraini, produced the actual stolen box (Ex. 1) and also the key with which it was opened. The remaining sum of Rs. 7,100/- was recovered from it. The entry in the recovery memo was only admissible to prove knowledge by the accused from whom recovery was made of the place where the money was kept. The character of possession of the box by Smt. Naraini had to be inferred from other facts. The remaining sum of Rs. 7,100/- was recovered from it. The entry in the recovery memo was only admissible to prove knowledge by the accused from whom recovery was made of the place where the money was kept. The character of possession of the box by Smt. Naraini had to be inferred from other facts. As the house was owned by Nand-ram, father of Prem Raj, he was also convicted u/s 411 IPC and sentenced to six months' RI together with his wife Smt. Nanhi. 3. The lower appellate court had acquitted Nandram and Smt. Nanhi quite rightly. It, however, took the view that the possession of money by the wife was the possession of the husband. It, therefore, maintained the convictions of the two Applicants although it reduced the sentence of Smt. Naraini from six months' RI to three months' RI. It has been contended before me that there is no evidence to show that Prem Raj was either a thief or in possession of the money so that no presumption u/s 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act could be raised against him. As regards the Applicant Smt. Naraini, it was contended that her possession could not be said to be on her own account even if it could be held to have been proved. It was also argued, on the strength of Khushi Ram v. Emperor 1922 ALJ 162 and Dharam Singh Mangal Singh Vs. The State, AIR 1961 P&H 30 , that the mere handing over of a key of a box by a wife could not establish that she was in possession on behalf of her husband. The contentions are conflicting. If the wife was not herself in possession, on the ground that it must have the money been given to her for keeping, the money could only be handed over by the husband to her. 4. It is true that Section 27 IPC requires proof that the possession of a wife, which is deemed to be the possession of the husband, must be shown to be on account of the husband. But, the evidence from which it could be inferred that it is a possession on account of the husband is another matter. Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be used to draw inferences which are natural and reasonable. But, the evidence from which it could be inferred that it is a possession on account of the husband is another matter. Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be used to draw inferences which are natural and reasonable. If circumstantial evidence is of such a character against an accused that no inference except that he had taken the stolen box and given it to his wife to keep could be reached, such a conclusion may be arrived at even in the absence of direct evidence of entrustment by him to the wife. 5. In the instant case, Prem Raj is also shown to have been a peon of the District Board of which the complainant Sri Ram Murti was the Secretary. The theft is said to have taken place between 10th February and 13th February, 1968. It was in this period that Prem Raj was absent from Pilibhit, as proved by his own witness Hakeem Aftab Husain (DW 5), who deposed that he had made a report against him for this absence between 10th and 13th February, 1968. Apparently, Prem Raj was employed in the local hospital as a peon of the District Board. He was living in the servants' quarters of the District Board just as Ram Charan was. Rs. 7,100/- was recovered from village Belgawan from a house in which the family of Prem Raj resided. Nandram and Smt. Nanhi, the father and mother of Prem Raj, who had been convicted by the Magistrate were lightly acquitted by the lower appellate court as they could not have been the thieves and their possession of money, with knowledge of its stolen character, could be said to be doubtful. In fact, Smt. Nanhi and Smt. Naraini had assisted in the recovery of money. It seems they knew of the stolen character of the money because, on being questioned by the Investigating Officer, Smt. Nanhi opened the Kotha and Smt. Naraini produced the box. Smt. Naraini also produced the key of the box. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Smt. Naraini could have got the box, containing the money, from anyone except the Applicant Prem Raj who was suddenly missing from Pilibhit apparently without having taken leave. It is true that Prem Raj was not found in his house at the village. Smt. Naraini also produced the key of the box. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Smt. Naraini could have got the box, containing the money, from anyone except the Applicant Prem Raj who was suddenly missing from Pilibhit apparently without having taken leave. It is true that Prem Raj was not found in his house at the village. But, from the totality of facts, it can be inferred that his wife Smt. Naraini was in possession of the money on behalf of Prem Raj so that it was really his possession. In the circumstances and bearing in mind that Smt. Naraini had helped in the recovery of money, the ends of justice will be served by reducing her sentence to the period already undergone. She was merely the custodian of money with good reasons to believe that it was stolen. 6. So far as the Applicant Prem Raj is concerned, although the evidence against him is circumstantial, it excludes the possibility of the money having been carried to village Balgawari and kept in his house in the custody of his wife by any one except Prem Raj. Therefore, with the help of Section 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act, a presumption could be raised that he was one of the thieves. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted u/s 380 IPC and sentenced to 18 months' RI. 7. In the result, I allow this revision application to the extent that I reduce the sentence of Smt. Naraini to the period already undergone, but the conviction and sentence of Prem Raj are confirmed.