JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. 1. Jugal Kishore has been convicted and sentenced under section 412 IPC to undergo RI for 5 years. 2. On the night between 27th and 28th May, 1968, a dacoity was committed at the house of Radha Kishan, (PW 1) in village Niyaji, hamlet of village Jalalpur Panchama, police station Kannauj, district Farrukhabad. In this dacoity the dacoits, inter alia, took away 48 silver lachhas. ON 3-9-1968 Brij Raj Singh, arrested the appellant from his house in Khapra Mohal in the city of Kanpur in connection with a dacoity of village Udaipurwa within police station Thatia in the presence of Shakur, Budhu Lal PWs 6, 10 and Sri M. D. Maurya, Deputy Superintendent of Police and recovered 20 silver lachhas, Ex. 3. The appellant was made under cover. ON 7-11-1968 Sri M. N. Sharma, Magistrate put up these lachhas for test identification. Lachhas were identified by Radha Kishan and his son Prabhat Kumar PWs 1 and 2. The appellant was also put up for personal identification. He was identified by 3 witnesses. 3. Consequently the appellant was tried for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 412 IPC. As the evidence of personal identification was not believed, the appellant was not convicted under section 395 IPO. 4. The appellant did not claim to be the owner of the lachhas. He contended that the lachhas were not recovered from his possession. It was suggested on his behalf that the lachhas were taken from Radha Kishan and were then shown to have been recovered from his possession. The learned Trial Judge has believed the testimony of Brij Raj Singh Tomar Shakur and Budhu Lal and as such held that the lachhas were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Hence the appellant was convicted under section 412 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant did not come up to argue the appeal. LEARNED counsel for the State was heard and record was examined with his assistance. 6. It will be noticed that the appellant did not claim to be the owner of the lachhas. On the other hand the suggestion on his behalf was that the lachhas in question were taken from Radha Kishan, victim of dacoity and were wrongly shown to have been recovered from his possession. 6. It will be noticed that the appellant did not claim to be the owner of the lachhas. On the other hand the suggestion on his behalf was that the lachhas in question were taken from Radha Kishan, victim of dacoity and were wrongly shown to have been recovered from his possession. The prosecution has proved by the testimony of Radha.Kishan and his son Prabhat Kumar that the lachhas in question were taken away by the dacoits at the time of the dacoity. These two persons identified the lachhas in the test identification proceedings. In view of the above, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the lachhas in question were the subject of dacoity at the house of Radha Kishan on the night intervening 27th and 28th May, 1968. The only question which requires adjudication in this appeal is whether lachhas in question were recovered from the possession of the appellant. It will be noticed that the dacoity was committed within district Farmkhabad. Recovery has been made from a house situate in the city of Kanpur. The appellant was in occupation of the said house. Brij Raj Singh, Station Officer, polios station Thatia who recovered the lachhas was not investigating the dacoity in question. He arrested the appellant in connection with a dacoity of his police station. Therefore, he was not interested in showing a false recovery in respect of the dacoity in question. Shakur (PW 6) is an illiterate person and carries on a rickshaw repair shop in the locality in which the appellant's house was situate. Has had not given any evidence previously on behalf of the police. Buddhu Lal carried on business of handloom cloth viz. Chadars. He lives in the locality in which the appellant was arrested and lachhas were recovered from his possession. He has also not given any evidence in any case on behalf of the police prior to the instant incident. Thus both these witnesses are of the locality and independent and reliable. In these circumstances reliance can easily be placed on the testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses so far as the recovery of lachhas from; the possession of the appellant is concerned. There are no doubt a few discrepancies appearing in the statements of Buddhu Lal and Brij Raj Singh. In these circumstances reliance can easily be placed on the testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses so far as the recovery of lachhas from; the possession of the appellant is concerned. There are no doubt a few discrepancies appearing in the statements of Buddhu Lal and Brij Raj Singh. It will be noticed that the recovery was made in September, 1968, and the evidence was recorded 8 years thereafter in June, 1976. This long gap seems to be reasonable for the discrepancies. Therefore, no value can be attached to the discrepancies. 7. The question which next arises is whether the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under section 412 IPC or he is guilty of the offence punishable u/S. 411 IPO. 8. Section 411 IPC lays down that whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property shall be punished. Then section 412 lays down, whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished. These two sections are overlapping in the sense that they punish the person who receives or retains a property knowing or having reason to believe it to he a stolen one. Section 412 is, however, an aggravated form of section 411 because it punishes a receiver or retainer of stolen property who has come in possession thereof through a dacoity or knowing that is was subject of a dacoity, whereas section 411 punishes a person who has come in possession of the [property through a thief, or knowing that it was subject of a theft. Dacoity is an aggravated form of theft. In the present case, it is apparent that the recovery of lachhas from the possession of the appellant took place more than 3 months after the dacoity. In this period lachhas could have easily changed various hands. Dacoity is an aggravated form of theft. In the present case, it is apparent that the recovery of lachhas from the possession of the appellant took place more than 3 months after the dacoity. In this period lachhas could have easily changed various hands. There is no material on record to indicate that the appelant received the lachhas from a person whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits. There is also no material on record to indicate that the appellant came to possess the lachhas knowing or having reason to believe that they were the subject of a dacoity. In these circumstances it is obvious that the main ingredients of section 412 IPC are not established. Its result is that the appellant can only be convicted under section 411 IPC and not under section 412 IPC. 9. Lastly, there is question of sentence, Record shows that the appellant was convicted by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, on 13-8-1976. By order dated 19-8-1976 passed by this court, the appelant was ordered to be released on bail. The appellant was arrested on 3-9-1968. He was tried for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC. He was acquitted of that offence. There is nothing on record to show the result of the case of dacoity which Brij Raj Singh, Station Officer, police station Thatla PW 12, was investigating and in connection of which the appellant was mainly arrested. The record further shows that the appellant was granted bail on 28-4-1971. In this way the appellant has remained in jail for more than 2-1/2 years. According to the first information report 48 silver lachhas costing Rs. 480/- were taken away by the dacoits. In this way the value of 28 lachhas comes to Rs. 280/-. 10. Taking into account the above facts, the imprisonment which the appellant has already suffered is quite adequate for the offence committed by him. Appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed in this way that the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 412 IPC recorded by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, on 13-8-1976 are set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted under section 411 IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The appellant is no bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. --- Appeal allowed.