Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been referred against the judgment of Additional sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar, dated 22. 4. 1978, where by upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to Brij Lal, petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No 2, Alwar for the offence undersection 411 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts of this case in brief are that in the mid night of 27th July, 1975, and 28th July, 1975, a theft was committed in the shop of complainant Kishan Lal and 426 metre cloth, 281/2 pairs of dhotis 10 kg. sugar and cash Rs. 7/- were stolen away. On this report the police registered the case and investigated the matter. During investigation the police arrested Bhagwana. On interrogation Bhagwana informed that the stolen articles are at the house of Brij Lal. Bhagwana who was in custody with the police in some other case gave this information about Brij Lal. On this information the house of Brijlal was searched and from his house some cloth, ornaments, utencils and sewing machine etc, were seized. With regard to the theft in this case some cloth and 13 pairs of Dhotist were seized. After this Brij Lal, was arrested. The identification of the articles was done by Krishan Lal, who identified the articles to be his. After the investigation the police submitted the challan against Bhagwana, Ramesh, Kalyan and Brij Lal. After hearing the arguments before charge the learned Magistrate did not find any case against Ramesh and Kalyan. Hence both these persons were discharged. Bhagwana and Brij Lal were charge sheeted. After recording the evidence and hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate did not find accused Bhagwana guilty of the charge framed against him and acquitted him. The case against Brij Lal was found established and he was found guilty for the offence under Section 411 I. P. C. and sentenced him to 3 months R. I. and the fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine it was ordered that he should undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. ( 3 ) AGAINST the judgment of the learned Magistrate, dated 21st March, 1977, Brijlal, preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Alwar and the appeal was disposed of by the A. D. J. on 22nd April, 1978, whereby upholding the conviction and sentence of Brjjlal. ( 3 ) AGAINST the judgment of the learned Magistrate, dated 21st March, 1977, Brijlal, preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Alwar and the appeal was disposed of by the A. D. J. on 22nd April, 1978, whereby upholding the conviction and sentence of Brjjlal. Against this judgment Brijlal bas preferred this present revision petition. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the accused Brij lal, was sent to jail after the judgment of A. D. J. Alwar, on 22nd April, 1978, and he was released from jail on 12th September, 1978. Thus, he had completed the sentence awarded to him. The learned Public Prosecutor, has brought to my notice that after his conviction by the, Additional Sessions Judge, he preferred this revision petition and by the order of this court dated 19th July, 1978, he was ordered to be released on surety and the sentence was suspended. In spite of this suspension Brijlal, remained in jail upto 12th September, 1978, it means he was in jail in connection with some other case. Thus, it cannot be said that Brijlal, has completed the sentence awarded to him in this case. ( 5 ) I have looked into this aspect of this case and also be heard both the learned counsel on merits of this case. The recovery of the cloths and other articles from the house of accused Brijlal is not disputed. Brijlal, his own statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has admitted that police seized clothes and other articles from his house. His contentions is that these articles were not stolen articles but they belong to him. Thus, the recovery of the articles from the house of accused Brijlal, is not disputed. The point is whether these articles were stolen articles, on whether they belong to complainant Kishanlal or not. On this aspect I have persued the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Identification of these recovered articles was done by complaint Krishanlal and he identified that they belong to him. There is no proof on the record 00 behalf of accused that these recovered articles belong to him. As the recovery is admitted. The prosecution has proved that the recovered articles are stolen articles and they belong to complainant Kishanlal. Identification of these recovered articles was done by complaint Krishanlal and he identified that they belong to him. There is no proof on the record 00 behalf of accused that these recovered articles belong to him. As the recovery is admitted. The prosecution has proved that the recovered articles are stolen articles and they belong to complainant Kishanlal. The prosecution evidence has been discussed by the learned Magistrate in details in his judgment and believed the prosecution witnesses. The conclusion arrived by the learned Magistrate is that those articles were stolen articles and they belong to complainant Kishanlal. This has been affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment also. I have also independently scrutinsed the entire prosecution evidence and find that both the learned lower courts have correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and have correctly arrived at the conclusion. The case against the accused petitioner under Section 411 I. P. C. has been established, and independently also I hold sc. Thus, on the merits of this case this revision petition has no force. The petitioner Brijlal, has been rightly found guilty under Section 411 I. P. C. and has been sentenced appropriately. ( 6 ) AS contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Brijlal, has already suffered the sentence awarded to him if it is so it will be Seen by the jail authorities because Brijlal, petitioner has been released from jail on 12th September, 1978, while he was serving sentence in another case. If the release of Brijlal, is in this case which is under Section 411 I. P. C. then he has already suffered the sentence. In case, he was released in some another offence and the sentence of this case has not undergone then he will be sent to jail to undergo the sentence awarded in this case. The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, was delivered on 22nd April. 1978 and by the order of this court dated 19th July, 1978, his sentence was suspended and was ordered to be released on furnishing surety and personal bond. From the order sheet dated 10th November, 1978, it is found that Brijlal, was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing surety and personal bond. 1978 and by the order of this court dated 19th July, 1978, his sentence was suspended and was ordered to be released on furnishing surety and personal bond. From the order sheet dated 10th November, 1978, it is found that Brijlal, was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing surety and personal bond. It means that if by the order of this court dated 19th July, 1978, he was released but again he was arrested and released on 10th November, 1978, for how much period lie remained in jail is not clear from the record and the learned counsel set for the petitioner also could not give details about his period of detention. So it cannot be said that petitioner Brijlal has completed the sentence awarded to him. ( 7 ) IN view of the discussion I find no force in this revision petition and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 411 I. P. C. awarded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar, is maintained. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, is directed to take necessary steps for the arrest of the accused if he has not undergone the sentence sending him to jail for undergoing the sentence awarded to him by the learned lower courts. However, the accused, person shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 Cr. P. C. Revision dismissed