Short Note : 1. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that on the recovery of the stolen articles, presumption that the appellants were the dacoits should not have been drawn. This Court finds substance in this contention. The incident took place between the intervening night of 22 and 23 March 1974. The information by the three appellants was furnished on 2.2.1975 and 5.2.1975 respectively. Ornaments were thus recovered in consequence of the information of the three appellants in February 1975 i.e. about 11 months of the commission of dacoity. Under section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act, it is permissible to presume that the persons found in possession of the stolen goods for which they are unable to account for, are either thieves or receivers of stolen goods In drawing such a presumption, the time lag between the commission of the offence and the recovery of the articles has to be kept in view. Since a period of 11 months elapsed after the commission of the offence, there was possibility of the articles passing hands. In view of this long time lag, the proper presumption to be drawn against the three appellants would be that they were receivers of stolen properties of the dacoity. In the view of this Court, the three appellants could not be convicted under sections 450 and 395 of the IPC but they could be properly convicted under section 412 of the IPC. On the facts and circumstances two years rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. Appeal partly allowed.