JUDGMENT 1. - These two criminal revisions by accused Banshi, Hakuda and Badamis are directed against their conviction Under Section 379 IPC and to a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that PW 6 Damodar ledged an FIR Ex PI at police station, Kotwali, Sikar, on 26th December, 1971, that there was a shop outside Baori Gate, Sikar, in which the cloth business is done. At about 8 p.m. Samda Tongewala was stopped to take certain goods from the shop to the railway station. One bundle of cloth was put in the Tonga and while the driver of the Tonga returned back for putting the bundle of cloth in the Tonga he found that the first bundle was missing. Damodar, who has lodged the FIR Ex PI alongwith the tonga driver and some other persons ran to and for and found that three persons were taking the aforesaid bundle of cloth inside Baori gate. They were chased but could not be apprehended. In the bundle there were Sarees and other cloth which were worth about Rs. 1,500/- and on every article there was an identification mark `s'. The said goods were being sent to Hissar The police on the aforesaid report registered a case under Section 379 IPC and at about 10.30 p.m. in the night of 26th December, 1971, itself searched the house of the accused persons and recovered the articles at the instance of the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide seizure memos Exs. P3, P4, and P5. The accused persons were also arrested. After completing the investigation, a challan was filed against the accused persons under Section 379/411 IPC. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1 Balbir Singh, who has stated that he had come from Hissar to purchase sarees (CDNNIS) on 26th December, 1971 at Sikar. He had purchased 680/700 (LOOGRIS) from the shop of M/S. San war Mai Paras Ram An identification mark `s' is put on the goods purchased from the shop of M/S. Sanwar Mai Paras Ram. After purchase six bundles were prepared. At about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. he had brought a tonga for taking the aforesaid goods. He had purchased 680/700 (LOOGRIS) from the shop of M/S. San war Mai Paras Ram An identification mark `s' is put on the goods purchased from the shop of M/S. Sanwar Mai Paras Ram. After purchase six bundles were prepared. At about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. he had brought a tonga for taking the aforesaid goods. In the tonga one bundle was put and when the tonga driver went inside to take another bundle and came out then the first bundle was not found in the tonga. The tonga driver raised hue and cry and on this Heera Lal, Demodar and witness PW 1 Balbir Singh came outside the shop. Thereafter the witness went to catch the train and the other persons went towards Baori Gate in search of the goods. Krishna Singh PW 2 is the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Sikar, who made the investigation of the case and has proved Ex. P3, P4 and P5, seizure memo apart from the other exhibits. PW 3 is Samed Khan Tonga-drivar who has also supported the prosecution case in material particulars. Heera Lal PW 4 is the partner of firm M/S. Sanwar Mai Paras Ram and he has also stated that at about 8 p.m. he was sitting on the shop inside the havali along with Birbal Damodar and other traders. Samda Pathan Tongewala raised a cry that somebody had run away by taking the bundle of cloth. They came out and found that three persons had taken away the bundle of cloth. They tried to chase the thieves but could not catch hold of them. In the bundle of cloth there were 108 items and three sarees. On the goods there was an identification mark `s'. There were the same goods. He identified the goods in the court which were sold to the persons of Hissar. A cross-examination of this witness was also done but unfortunately this statement of PW 4 recorded on 15th December, 1972, remained unsigned by the Presiding Officer. In these circumstances the statement of this witness was again recorded on 22nd May, 1975 in which he gave the same statement as given earlier on 15th Dec., 1972 except that he could not identify the goods in the court as the same were already delivered to him during the pendency of the case. In these circumstances the statement of this witness was again recorded on 22nd May, 1975 in which he gave the same statement as given earlier on 15th Dec., 1972 except that he could not identify the goods in the court as the same were already delivered to him during the pendency of the case. He, however, stated that after the theft he had identified the goods in the court during his statement recorded on 15th December, 1972. He further stated that the goods had been delivered to him and their identification mark `s' was present on the goods. PW 5 Krishna Lal and PW 7 Murari Lal are the attesting witnesses to Ex.P3, P4 and P5 and have stated that the recoveries made in their presence and Ex.P3, P4 and P5 were correctly prepared on the spot and contained their signatures as witnesses. PW 6 is Damodar, who is a Munim on the firm M/S. Sanwar Mai Paras Ram & was present on 26th December, 1971, at the time of the occurrence and has narrated same story as stated by the other prosecution witnesses and has proved Ex.Pl lodged by him in the police station. The accused persons in their explanation totally denied the prosecution case. They denied the committing of any theft and also denied any recovery made at their houses The learned trial Court believed the entire prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated above. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also upheld the judgment of the trial Court relying on the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Hence this revision by the accused persons. 3. It was contended by Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the accused petitioners that they were not supplied with the list of all things seized in the course of search as contemplated under Section 103 Cr.P.C. I see no force in this contention. No such argument was raised in the courts below and there appeared to be no basis for making such argument for the first time in the revision before this Court. That apart, the accused persons have totally denied the making of any search at their house and are not claiming the stolen property as belonging to them. 4. No such argument was raised in the courts below and there appeared to be no basis for making such argument for the first time in the revision before this Court. That apart, the accused persons have totally denied the making of any search at their house and are not claiming the stolen property as belonging to them. 4. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the goods alleged to have been seized from the houses of the petitioners, were not mixed up with other articles and no identification was held before any Magistrate before proving them during the trial. I don't find any force in this contention. In the FIR Ex. PI identification mark `S' was mentioned as having been put on all goods sold from the firm M/s. Sanwar Mai Paras Ram. That apart PW 4 Heera Lal and PW 6 Damodar have clearly stated that the alleged goods recovered from the possession of the accused persons, was the same which was sold by the firm M/s. Sanwar Mai Paras Ram. 5. It was also argued by Mr Deva in this connection that the statement of Heera Lal PW 4 recorded on 15th December, 1972 cannot be taken into consideration as it has not been signed by the Presiding Officer. The trial court itself was aware of this fact and as such recorded the statement of Heera Lal second time on 22nd May, 1975. It is argued that in the statement dated 22nd May, 1975, the witness has not identified the goods and in the absence of such evidence there is no proof on record to show that theft of those very goods had taken place which were recovered from their houses and the accused persons cannot be connected with the goods alleged to have been recovered vide Exs. P3, P 4 and P5. I don't find much substance in this argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Technically speaking it is correct that the statement recorded on 15th December, 1972, was not signed by the Presiding Officer, but it is clear that a lengthy cross-examination was also made of the witness on that date. However, in the statement made by Heera Lal subsequently on 22nd May, 1975, he clearly stated that an identification mark `S' was put on a corner of all such goods. However, in the statement made by Heera Lal subsequently on 22nd May, 1975, he clearly stated that an identification mark `S' was put on a corner of all such goods. After the theft having taken place, the goods were identified by him during his statement recorded in the court on 15th Dec., 1972. Thus, he had corroborated his earlier statement made on 15th December, 1972 to the effect he had identified the goods when his statement was recorded on 15th that Dec. 1972. Learned counsel for the for the petitioners was unable to assail this part of the statement of the witness that he had identified the goods on 15th Dec. 1972. If that be so, it cannot be said that there is no evidence at all on the record to establish that the goods recovered vide Ex. P3, P 4 and P5 was the same which was stolen by the accused persons from the Tonga on 26th December, 1971. 6. Lastly it was contended by Mr. Dave that the incident is of the year 1971 and a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. The matter relates to a theft committed on the open thorough fare and there are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. One of the accused persons even remained absconded for some time and the goods worth about Rs. 1,500/- were recovered from the possession of the accused persons on the day of theft itself. Thus, I don't find any reason to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of award of sentence. 7. In the result, there is no force in these revisions and the same are accordingly dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. will now take steps for apprehending the accused persons and for sending them to jail for serving out the sentence awarded to them in the case. The accused persons would, however, be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. and the period of detention, if any, undergone by them during the investigation, inquiry or trial of this case before their conviction shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on them.Revision Dismissed. *******