JUDGMENT V.N.Varma, J. 1. This revision is directed against an order dated 22-3-1977 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under Section 411 IPC. 2. It appears that on the night of 11/12-8-72 a theft was committed at the house of one Gendan Lal of village Khanpur, P. S. Fatehganj, district Baneilly. In that theft Gendan Lal had lost his gun No. 81743 and some cartridges. A report about this theft was made, but nothing fruitful came out of it. On the night of 29/30-1-73 the police of P. S. Faridpur arrested some Badmashes from a grove in village Sarkara. One of the badmashes so arrested was the applicant. He was searched and a gun bearing no. 81743 was recovered from his possession. That gun belonged to Gendan Lal. Thereafter the usual investigation folio wed and eventually the applicant was sent up to stand his trial under Section 411 IPC. The applicant pleaded not guilty and denied the recovery of gun no. 81743 from his possession. He attributed his false implication due to enmity with the police. 3. The trial court found the prosecution case proved against the applicant and so it convicted him under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to one year R. I. Aggrieved, he went up in appeal but in vain. And hence this revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this revision must be allowed. Even if it be assumed for a moment that stolen gun No. 81743 belonging to Gendan Lal had been recovered from the possession of the applicant, I do not think, on the basis of the evidence on record, any offence under Section 411 IPC can be said to have been made out against him. In Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 , (their Lordships have remarked that the following things must be proved before a person could be convicted of an offence under Section 411, IPC: (1) That the stolen property was in the possession of the accused ; (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it; and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. It was stressed on behalf of the applicant that as the prosecution has failed to prove that some person other than the applicant had possession of the gun in question before the applicant got possession of it and so the offence under Section 411 IPC cannot be said to have been made out against him. I think this contention of the applicant is not without substance. The observations made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 39 were interpreted by our High Court in the ruling reported in Rajjaua v. the State, 1959 AWR. 361. The Court observed that in every case under Section 411 IPC, two facts have to be established by direct evidence, namely, (1) that a theft was committed and certain articles were stolen, and (2) that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. 5. They further observed that if these two facts are established and the recovery of the articles from the possession of the accused is a recent one, then it will be open to the Court to presume under Illustration (a) to Section 114, Indian Evidence Act that the accused is either a thief or a receiver of stolen property. Such a presumption was, however, a discretionary one and may not be available at all in certain cases, e.g., where in the circumstances of the case the recovery cannot be held to have been made soon after the theft. In such a case, it was remarked, that it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove by direct evidence not only that the stolen property was in possession of some person other than the accused before it came to his possession, but also that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was a stolen property. 6. From the above ruling, it, therefore, follows that in case the recovery was a recent one, then it was not necessary to prove that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it. On the other hand, if the recovery was not a recent one, then it was necessary that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it. This raises the question whether the recovery in the present case was a recent one or not. On the other hand, if the recovery was not a recent one, then it was necessary that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it. This raises the question whether the recovery in the present case was a recent one or not. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether the possession of the article is recent or otherwise. Every case has got to be judged on its own facts. In this case, the gun in question was recovered from the possession of the applicant after a lapse of about 5 1/2 months. It was quite a big gap and by no stretch of imagination one could call the recovery in this case to be a recent recovery. If the recovery was not a recent one, then it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that some person other than the applicant had the possession of the disputed gun before he got possession of it. This has not been proved by the prosecution in this case. Consequently, in view of the Supreme Court ruling referred to above, the applicant cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 411 IPC. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to them. Appeal allowed.