Order This is a criminal revision case filed by the accused Badrachalam against the judgment dated 15.12.1981 in C.A.No.17 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused/revision petitioner herein by the Court of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvellore. The trial Court found the revision-petitioner guilty under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks. 2. On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 Shanmugam, P.W.2 Natarajan, P.W.3 Punnyakoti, P.W.4 Salanuddin, P.W.5 Mani, Head Constable and P.W.6 Santhanam, Sub Inspector were examined. Exhibits P-1 complaint, P.2 confessional statements P.3 mahazar, P.4, mahazar and P.5 sketch were filed on behalf of the prosecution before the trial Court. M.Os.1 to 3 electric meters were also produced before the trial Court. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 Viswanathan, Assistant Divisional Engineer was examined. Exhibits D.1 attendance register for the year 1980 regarding the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Uthukottai, D.2 sheet relating to the month of June, D.3 endorsement of P.W.1 and D.4 memo given by D.W.1 on 18.9.1980 were filed on behalf of the accused before the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 4. P.W.1 Shanmugam is the Junior Engineer employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Uthukottai. When he took stock in the sub-station of Uthukottai Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and while verifying the account relating to the electrical goods, he found that three single phase meters-two India meters and one Ramco meter, that is, M.Os.1 to 3 (M.O.1 -622196: M.O.2 - 470434; and M.O.3 -594036) were missing. He got information that the accused/revision-petitioner had pledged them in the shop of one Dawood at Uthukottai wherein old materials were being sold. Thereafter P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 complaint at Uthukottai police station. Thereafter the accused was arrested by the police. All the three meters which were seized were shown to P.W.1, and he identified them. 5. P.W.2 Natarajan is working as a person attending to phones in the Office of the Sub-station of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Uthukottai. He has stated in his evidence that the accused was working as a commercial assistant. All the three meters which were seized were shown to P.W.1, and he identified them. 5. P.W.2 Natarajan is working as a person attending to phones in the Office of the Sub-station of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Uthukottai. He has stated in his evidence that the accused was working as a commercial assistant. He has further stated in his evidence that on 19.6.1980 three electric meters were found missing in their department. On 19.6.1980 the accused did not attend the office. P.W.1 gave the complaint to the police. 6. P.W.3 Punnyakoti belongs to Uthukottai. About 2 1/2 months prior to himself giving evidence before the trial Court, on a day in the morning, at 7.00 a.m., he found the Sub Inspector examining the accused in front of Modern Cafe at Uthukottai. The accused gave a confessional statement to the Sub Inspector, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-2, wherein the accused/revision-petitioner had stated that if he is taken to the place where he had sold the meter, he would point out the same. Exhibit P-2. reads as follows: According to P.W.3, the accused/revision-petitioner, in pursuance of the said confessional statement (Exhibit P-2) given by him, took the police and P.W.3 to the place and M.O.1 meter was seized from that place under Exhibit P-3 mahazar attested by P.W.3. The accused/revision-petitioner further stated that he had given two of the meters at Tiruvellore. and took the police and P.W.3 to the place where he had sold them M.Os.2 and 3 (two meters) were seized from that place. Exhibit P-4 is the mahazar for the seizure of those two meters. P.W.3 had attested the said Exhibit P-4 mahazar for the seizure of M.Os.2 and 3 meters, 7. P.W.4 Salanuddin has stated in his evidence that he belongs to Uthukottai and that he does not known anything about the case. He was treated hostile by the prosecution. He deposed that he did not give any statement to the police on 21.6.1980, that on 21.6.1980 the police did not come to him with the accused, and that he did not produce any meter saying that he had purchased the same from the accused/revision-petitioner. 8. P.W.5, Mani, Head Constable, was in-charge of the Police Station on 19.6.80. On the complaint given by P.W.1, he registered the case and took up the case for investigation. 8. P.W.5, Mani, Head Constable, was in-charge of the Police Station on 19.6.80. On the complaint given by P.W.1, he registered the case and took up the case for investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-5 rough sketch of the place of occurrence. He also examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 during investigation and recorded their statements. The Sub-Inspector took up further investigation in this case. 9. P.W.6 Santhanam, Sub-Inspector of Police has stated in his evidence that he took up further investigation in this case on 21.6.1980 and arrested the accused/ revision-petitioner at 7.00 a.m., on that day opposite to ‘Modern Cafe Hotel’ near the bus-stand at Uthukottai in the presence of P.W.3 Punnyakoti and one Jayapal. At that time the accused/revision-petitioner gave a voluntary confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-2. In pursuance of the said statement P.W.6 seized one meter bearing C.J.P.52609 from the shop of one Dawood which belongs to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thereafter/ the accused identified one Srinivasan at Ambika sound service situate in Nethaji Road at Tiruvellore. P.W.6 seized those meters which were sold for Rs.38/- in the presence of the witnesses under a mahazar. P.W.1 Junior Engineer identified those meters. Thereafter P.W.6 filed the charge-sheet against the accused/ revision-petitioner under section 381, Indian Penal Code. P.W.6 has also stated in his evidence that P.W.4 Salanuddin who had been treated hostile before the trial Court had stated in his Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, statement that on 21.6.1980 at 7.45a.m., Uthukottai police came to him and that he had stated that the accused/revision-petitioner had sold electric meters to him and that those meters were being produced by him. 10. When the accused/revision-petitioner herein was questioned by the trial Court under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused/revision-petitioner stated that he is innocent, that he had attended the Office from 1.6.1980 to 3.6.1980, and that he had gone on earned leave for one month from 4.6.1980 and as such he did not know anything about the case. P.W.1 was recalled and cross-examined. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner. The attendance register for the month of 3une regarding the Office of Uthukottai sub-station was identified and filed Exhibit D-2. The accused/revision-petitioner was absent on 4.6.1980. The accused was also continuously absent from 6.6.1980. Exhibit D-1 is the memo issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer to the accused. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner. The attendance register for the month of 3une regarding the Office of Uthukottai sub-station was identified and filed Exhibit D-2. The accused/revision-petitioner was absent on 4.6.1980. The accused was also continuously absent from 6.6.1980. Exhibit D-1 is the memo issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer to the accused. Exhibit D-3 is the endorsement made thereon by D.W.1. He had also denied the suggestion that he had refused to receive the leave letter submitted by the accused/revision-petitioner. 11. The Assistant Divisional Engineer Viswanathan who was examined on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner had stated that with respect to the theft, P.W.1 had sent a report to him on 18.6.1980 that the accused/revision-petitioner herein would have committed theft of the meters, and on the basis of the same, he had issued a memo (Exhibit D-4) to the accused-revision-petitioner asking him as to why action should not be taken against him. In the said memo it is mentioned that in the internal between 18.6.1980 and 19.6.1980 he had taken the meters and gave it to other persons; that on 18.6.1980 he was on leave and that he was also on leave from 10.6.1980 to 19.6.1980. 12. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/revision-petitioner had committed theft of three electric meters (M.Os.1 to 3) from Uthukottai sub-station of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board while he had been working there are commercial assistant. On the other hand, the case of the accused/revision-petitioner is that from 1.6.1980 to 3.6.1980 he had gone on leave and that thereafter from 4.6.1980, for about a month, he had gone on earned leave, and that he did not attend office during that time. He is innocent. It is also contended on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner herein that it is only due to enmity between him and one Shanmugam, Junior Engineer attached to the sub-station at Uthukottai, M.O.1 meter had been given to the Sub Inspector of Police at the Police Station and that the revision-petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case. The main legal contention that is raised on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner by Mr. The main legal contention that is raised on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner by Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai, the learned Counsel for the accused/revision-petitioner is that inasmuch as in Exhibit P-1 complaint it is stated that the meter had been given to one Dawood and that the said meter is in the shop of Dawood, it must be held that the prosecution knew about the place where the meter that was committed theft of had been kept, and as such there cannot any discovery of the material objects, namely, meters in pursuance of any confessional statement given by the accused/revision-petitioner. 13. In this regard, Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai, learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner refers to the decision in Jaffer Hussain v. State of Maharashtra Jaffer Hussain v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 1 S.C.J. 33: (1971) MLJ. (Crl.) 212: (1970) 2 S.C.R. 332 : (1970) Crl.L.J. 1659: (1970) L.W. (Crl.) 138: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1934, and relies on the observation of His Lordships in paragraph 7 at page 1937. “7. This Court had to consider the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1963) 3 S.C.R. 412 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788. There the appellant was convicted under section 411, Indian Penal Code by an Assistant Sessions Judge. He was tried along with another person who was convicted under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. A house had been burgled and valuable articles stolen. During the course of investigation the police recovered 17 ornaments on the information given by the appellant. The other accused had also given information on the basis of which another stolen ornament was recovered. The Assistant Session's Judge came to the conclusion that the other accused had actually committed house breaking and had removed the ornaments from the house burgled and had handed over 17 of them to the appellant. He also came to the conclusion that the 17 ornaments recovered at the instance of the appellant were in his possession and he therefore found him guilty under section 411, Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sessions Judge held that the appellant had not been proved to be in possessions of the 17 ornaments which were recovered at his instance from a guardian. On appeal the Sessions Judge held that the appellant had not been proved to be in possessions of the 17 ornaments which were recovered at his instance from a guardian. According to the Sessions Judge the full statement of the appellant that “he would show the place where he had hidden them (the ornaments)” was not admissible against him. The Sessions Judge held that the part of the Statement of the appellant which related to his having hidden the ornaments was inadmissible. There was a criminal revision to the High Court and re-trial was ordered and it was against that order that the appeal to this Court was directed. Overruling the interpretation of the Sessions Judge, this Court held that the whole of the statement related distinctly to the discovery of the ornaments and was admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was said: “These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the part history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement.”. The contention that in a case where the offence consisted of possession even the words “where he had hidden them” would be inadmissible as it amounted to an admission by the, accused that he was in possession of them was rejected on the ground that if the statement related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered it would be admissible in evidence irrespective of the question as to whether it amounted to a confession or not. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the appellant extracted by us would be admissible in evidence.” The decision in Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Sourashtra Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Sourashtra 1956 S.C.J. 243: (1956)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 135: (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1285 : A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 217, is relied on by Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai for the following observations of His Lordships at pages 129 and 1295: “…..Then we come to the recoveries. The false beard and mask were found buried in the grounds of Dewayat's house and the appellant is said to have recovered them in the presence of panchas. But those discoveries are inadmissible in evidence because the police already knew where they were hidden. Their information was not derived from the appellant but from Dewayat (One of the other suspects). The false beard and mask were found buried in the grounds of Dewayat's house and the appellant is said to have recovered them in the presence of panchas. But those discoveries are inadmissible in evidence because the police already knew where they were hidden. Their information was not derived from the appellant but from Dewayat (One of the other suspects). The way the police came to find this out was this. Dewayat says that the appellant confessed the murder to him and told him that he had gone there wearing a false beard and a mask and that he had burried these articles under the Shami tree in the grounds of Dewayat's bada. Dewayat says- “Next the police called me to go to Kalawad. At that time Raja had been arrested. … I was interrogated. I spoke about the beard at that time. Then the police came to my field with Raja”. If Meraman (P.W.11), read with the confused statement of Kana (P.W.4), is to be believed, Dewayat was also under arrest either at the time or on the day before. As the Sub-Inspector was not examined, we are unable to clear this up and so are bound to give weight to the criticism of the Sessions Judge where he says- “However, Dewayat confesses that his statement was not recorded on the 19th of May, 1952 but was recorded on 20.5.1952 only after he was questioned by the police.” In our opinion, not only is this evidence about recovery not admissible but the danger that Samant (P.W.16) mistook Dewayat, who was also under strong suspicion, or someone else who looked like the appellant, for the appellant, has not been excluded.” 14. The decision in Thimma v. State of Mysore Thimma v. State of Mysore (1971) 1 S.C.J. 721: (1971) MLJ. (Crl.) 336: (1971) Crl.L.J. 1314: (1971) 1 S.C.R. 215 : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1871, is relied on by Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai, for the observation of His Lordships in paragraph 10 at page 1877 which runs as follows: “10. Reliance on behalf of the prosecution was also placed on the information given by the appellant which led to the discovery of the dead body and other articles found at the spot. N.T.Vanamamalai, for the observation of His Lordships in paragraph 10 at page 1877 which runs as follows: “10. Reliance on behalf of the prosecution was also placed on the information given by the appellant which led to the discovery of the dead body and other articles found at the spot. It was contended that the information received from him related distinctly to the facts discovered and, therefore, the statement conveying the information was admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This information, it was argued also lends support to the appellant's guilt. It appears to us that when P.W.4 was suspected of complicity in this offence he would in all probability have disclosed to the police the existence of the dead body and the other articles at the place where they were actually found. Once a fact is discovered from other sources there can be no fresh discovery even if relevant information is extracted from the accused and Courts have to be watchful against the ingenuity of the investigation officer in this respect so that the protection afforded by the wholesome provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act is not whittled down by the mere manipulation of the record of case diary. It would, in the circumstances, be somewhat unsafe to rely on this information for proving the appellant's guilt. We are accordingly disinclined to take into consideration this statement.” The decision in Sadayandi Naicker v. Emperor Sadayandi Naicker v. Emperor (1936) M.W.N. 1378, is also relied on by Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai, learned Counsel for the accused/revision-petitioner in this regard. In the said case the police said that when the accused was arrested to gave information regarding the disposal of the stolen articles and pointed out the house where they were disposal oft but the articles were already found in that house long before the arrest. It was held, that the evidence of the constable was inadmissible as the information did not result in the discovery of any fact by the police. 15. The point for consideration in this criminal revision case is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 16. It is not in dispute that the accused/ revision-petitioner had been working as commercial assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Uthukottai sub-station. 15. The point for consideration in this criminal revision case is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 16. It is not in dispute that the accused/ revision-petitioner had been working as commercial assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Uthukottai sub-station. P.W.1 Shanmugam, Junior Engineer, has stated in his evidence that when he verified the stock on 19.6.1980, he came to know that three electric meters were missing and accordingly he gave Exhibit P-1 report. He has further stated in his evidence that though the said meters were in his custody, yet, there is responsibility with respect to these three meters-M.Os.1 to 3 so far as the revision-petitioner is concerned because the revision-petitioner is the assistant of P.W.1 Junior Engineer. This responsibility of the revision-petitioner is not denied, and it is not opposed. Nothing is shown from the records that the accused/revision-petitioner is not having the said responsibility. Thus, we see that it has been proved by the prosecution that the revision-petitioner is responsible for giving the electric meters and also keep them in safe custody when they are returned. He had those opportunities of discharge of his duties with respect to the electric meters in the said office of the sub-station at Uthukottai. 17. It is not in dispute that all the seized three meters-M.Os.1 to 3 which are said to have been committed theft of by the accused/revision-petitioner belonged to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the letters “C.J.P.” found in one of the material objects denote “Tamil Nadu Electricity Board”, and that in M.O.1 the number 0622196 and M.O.2 the number 470434 are written in black letters. It is also stated by P.W.1 that M.O.1 was taken from the godown of the sub-station, and that is mentioned in the stock register. It is also pointed out that the numbers found in both these meters were scrapped. The evidence on record clearly shows that the electric meters (M.Os.1 to 3) seized in this case belonged to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thus, it is seen that the prosecution has proved its case that M.Os.1 to 3-Electric Meters had been stolen from the sub-station at Uthukottai Tamil Nadu Electricity Board when they were in the custody of P.W.1, Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 18. Thus, it is seen that the prosecution has proved its case that M.Os.1 to 3-Electric Meters had been stolen from the sub-station at Uthukottai Tamil Nadu Electricity Board when they were in the custody of P.W.1, Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 18. It is contended on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner that due to enmity P.W.1 had given Exhibit P-1, complaint falsely implicating the accused/revision-petitioner. In Exhibit P-1 complaint it is stated as follows: “……On enquiry it is understood that Thiru v. K.Badrachalam, Commercial Assistant of this section has pledged one meter at the shop owned by Thiru Dawood at Uthukottai for Rs.20/-. The whereabouts of the other two meters are not able to be traced out.” 19. It is seen from Exhibit D-1 attendance register that P.W.1 had come to that division as Junior Engineer only on 14.5.80. Thus, within a short time it cannot be said that enmity arose between P.W.1 and the accused/revision-petitioner, and as such P.W.1 had falsely implicated the accused/revision-petitioner. It is also seen that after P.W.1 took charge, in the month of May 1980, the accused/ revision-petitioner attended office only for five days as per Exhibit D-1. In the month of June, the accused/revision-petitioner attended office only for four days. It cannot be held that in the short period of the above nine days, bitter enmity arose between them. 20. P.W.2 Natarajan, foreman states in his evidence that the accused/revision-petitioner had been working in the office during the relevant time, that electric meters were missing during that time, and that P.W.1 had given a complaint regarding the same. He has denied the suggestion that a complaint falsely implicating the accused/revision-petitioner had been filed. 21. P.W.3 Punnyakoti has stated in his evidence that he was present at the time when the accused/revision-petitioner was arrested in front of Uthukottai Modern Cafe, and that the accused/revision-petitioner was examined by the police. At that time the accused/revision petitioner had informed that he would show the person to whom he had sold the meters and that if he is taken, he would identify the person and also recover the meters and hand them over to the police. The admissible portion of the voluntary confessional statement given by the accused/ revision-petitioner is Exhibit P-2. In pursuance of the said confessional statement, the accused/revision-petitioner took the police to the old iron shop of one Dawood at Uthukottai. The admissible portion of the voluntary confessional statement given by the accused/ revision-petitioner is Exhibit P-2. In pursuance of the said confessional statement, the accused/revision-petitioner took the police to the old iron shop of one Dawood at Uthukottai. It was one Salanuddin, son of Dawood who had produced the meters. The electric meters were seized under Exhibit P-3 mahazar. Thereafter, M.Os.2 and 3 electric meters were seized as per Exhibit P-4mahazar from one Srinivasan of Tiruvellore. On behalf of the revision-petitioner herein it is contended that P.W.3 Punnyakoti is obliged to the police and, so at the instance of the police he is falsely, implicating the accused/revision-petitioner in this case. It is relevant to note that there is absolutely no material placed before the Court on behalf of the revision-petitioner herein to uphold the said contention raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner. Merely on the ground that P.W.3 had not stated in his evidence about the direction of the road at the place of the seizure of the materials, namely, meters, as well as the location of the shop, his evidence cannot be rejected as false. 22. It is here that we have to consider the contention raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner that inasmuch as the police Officer knew about the place where the stolen articles were kept, by the contents of Exhibit P-1, it should be held that that there was no legal seizure or discovery of the electric meters in pursuance of Exhibit P-2 admissible portion of the confessional statement. Even at the outset it is relevant to note that Exhibit P-1 is only a complaint given by P.W.1, and it only sets the law in motion. 23. A mere mention in a complaint given to the police alleging that the property committed theft of might be kept in a particular place, does not amount to information already given to the investigating Officer so as to hit the recovery of a material object by the investigating officer in pursuance of the admissible portion of the voluntary confessional statement given by the accused as illegal. The existence of such a reference in the complaint suggesting the place where the stolen articles might be kept does not amount to any prior information to the investigating Officer since it is only during the course of investigation, on the basis of the complaint, that an investigating officer comes to know of the place where the articles committed theft of are kept. In this view, when it is specifically in evidence that it is only in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confessional statement an article is recovered in the presence of the witnesses a mahazar duly signed by an independent witness who had actually seen the recovery, does not become illegal or against the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, merely on the ground that the author of the complaint refers in the complaint about the place where the stolen articles might have been kept. 24. The contents of Exhibit P-1 are only to be investigated by the investigating officer who undertakes investigation in this case. It is not brought out from the evidence of P.W.5 Head Constable or P.W.6 Sub-Inspector of Police that soon after the complaint was laid, any one of them proceeded to the shop of Dawood and found out whether the electric meters were kept there. The evidence discloses that only in pursuance of Exhibit P-2 admissible portion of the confessional statement given by the revision-petitioner, it is seen that the electric meters were seized by the investigating officer in the presence of P.W.3 who had attested Exhibit P-3 mahazar for the seizure of the electric motor. It is also relevant in this connection to note that it was P.W.4 Salanuddin, son of Dawood who had produced M.O.1 electric meter as one which was purchased from the accused/revision-petitioner. P.W.4 had been treated hostile to the prosecution. P.W.6 Sub-Inspector of Police has also stated in his evidence that P.W.4 had stated before him in his statement that on 21.6.1980 at about 7-45 a.m., the police brought the accused/revision-petitioner before him and also admitted that the accused/revision-petitioner had pledged the electric meter for Rs.20/-about one week prior to 21.6.1980 and that he produced the said meter to the police. Thus, we find that P.W.4 had wantonly turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 - Investigating Officers corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in this case. Thus, we find that P.W.4 had wantonly turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 - Investigating Officers corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in this case. Since in the instant case, before us, it is in evidence that only in pursuance of Exhibit P-2 admissible portion of the confessional statement given by the accused/revision-petitioner, the revision-petitioner had taken the police to P.W.4, and that it was during that time P.W.4 also produced the electric meter which was seized under Exhibit P-3 mahazar attested by P.W.3, the contention raised on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner that the police knew about the place where the meter was kept already due to the contents of Exhibit P-1, cannot be upheld. The evidence on record clearly proves that it was only from P.W.4 the electric meter had been recovered at the instance of the confessional statement of the revision-petitioner, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-2. The facts of the instant case before is are different from the facts of the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the accused/ revision-petitioner. Hence the point raised, namely, that the seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 is illegal, cannot be upheld. 25. On a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the lower appellate Court is correct in confirming the conviction of the accused/revision-petitioner under section 381, Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed on the revision-petitioner by the trial Court, and in turn confirmed by the lower appellate Court, cannot also be said to be either severe or excessive. 26. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Hence the criminal revision case is dismissed. B.S. ----- Criminal revision dismissed.