Short Note : 1. On going through the record, I find that there is no doubt about the identity of the property and it was definitely one of the items which were looted in the dacoity on the date of occurrence. This gun was held by the complainant under Arms licence. But the conviction of the appellant for the offence under sections 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code merely on the basis of this circumstance cannot be sustained. Held: The learned Sessions Judge was under a mistaken notion that the recovery of the aforesaid stolen property was made immediately within 5 days of the date of the occurrence and, therefore the appellant accused could be held guilty for the offence of dacoity even in the absence of any other evidence to connect him by drawing a presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act. It will be significant to note that the appellant could neither be identified nor the other items of the stolen properties alleged to have been discovered by his memorandum could be identified by the complainant and the members of the family. The conviction of the appellant rests solely on the recovery of the gun. 2. On close scrutiny of the record, I find that the learned Sessions Judge was apparently under a mistake in drawing a presumption under section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act. From the documents containing the memorandum and seizure, it is apparent that the recovery was made on 28-7-1975. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge was under an impression that It was of the year 1974 and as such observed that only 5 days had passed from the date of the occurrence, which undisputedly took place on 23-7-1974. The learned counsel appearing for the State has also gone through the entire record and stated that undoubtedly the recovery was made on 28-7-1975, i.e. after more than one year. Under these circumstances, it was not possible to draw a presumption against this accused appellant for his participation in the offence of dacoity. Even if the testimony of the witnesses to the memorandum and discovery are believed, the only legitimate presumption which could be drawn against the appellant is that he knew that the gun was one of the stolen articles in the dacoity and he received the same. Even if the testimony of the witnesses to the memorandum and discovery are believed, the only legitimate presumption which could be drawn against the appellant is that he knew that the gun was one of the stolen articles in the dacoity and he received the same. The appellant can, therefore, be convicted at the most for the offence punishable under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code but, in no case for the offence under sections 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, Appeal partly allowed.