NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, J.—This is a revision by Udailal against the judgment of the Sessions Pratapgarh (camp Chittorgarh) dated August 29, 1979, whereby the Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner in Criminal case No. 119 of 1973 by the Judicial Magistrate Kapasin. 2. I have heard Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and have perused the record. 3. Prosecution case is that Chaturbhuj P.W. 1 had an agricultural field in village Bhatton- ka-bamania Tehsil Kapasan District Chittorgarh. The petitioner used to work as agricultural labourer on the field of Chaturbhuj since 1968 5 years before the date of the incident. On March 2, 1973 Indira Devi found a golden tops in the field of Chaturbhuj and brought it to her home and showed it to his father Chaturbhuj. After seeing the tops Chaturbhuj thought that it belonged to him and as to how it was lying in the field. He immediately made a search in his boxes and found that apart from a golden bor the remaining ornaments were missing. He told about it to the village people and also inquired from Udailal petitioner. It was alleged that Udailal told that no steps may be taken against him and he will arrange for the amount of the value of the golden orgaments. However. Udailal did not pay any amount. Chaturbhuj, therefore, lodged first information report on March 4, 1973 at Police Station Kapasan regarding theft of some golden and silver ornaments by Udailal from his house. The Police after necessary investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner in the court of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Kapasan. The petitioner was charged with the offence under section 380 l.P.C. and after trial, the Judicial Magistrate held him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of the payment of the fine, he was further sentenced to 2 months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan dated December 20, 1976 in the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, Pratap-garh (camp Chittorgarh) by his judgment dated August 29, 1979 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. He has accordingly come in revision to this Court. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan dated December 20, 1976 in the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, Pratap-garh (camp Chittorgarh) by his judgment dated August 29, 1979 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. He has accordingly come in revision to this Court. 4. The accused Udailal was arrested on March 6, 1973 and at the time of his arrest and search inter alia a radio which was purchased by Udailal on February 22, 1973 and a watch (Swiss made) was also recovered from his possession. While in police custody Udailal gave an information Ex. P. 12 to the police wherein he stated that the silver and golden ornaments were sold to a Saraf for Rs. 202/- and Rs. 288/- respectively which he can get recovered. The petitioner took Investigating Officer to the shop of Kishansingh P.W. 9. Kishan Singh told the Police that the petitioner had sold him silver and golden ornaments which he got melted from Bhanwarlal Soni and he produced 2 melted pieces of silver and gold weighing 510 grams and 14 grams respectively. The same were seized by the police under the seizure memo Ex. P. 6. Kishansingh was examined by the prosecution as P.W. 9 and he deposed that on February 22, 1973 the petitioner had sold him 3 pairs of tops of gold and some other items in all weighing 14 grams The net weight of the gold was 11 grams and he purchased these ornaments for Rs. 286/- from the petitioner. A memorandum Ex. P. 8 of this transaction was written and it was signed by petitioner at place A to B. He also purchased 2 pairs of payjeb, 3 kandore and some miscellaneous articles of silver weighing 505 grams for Rs. 202/- and the memorandum Ex. P. 9 in that respect was drawn and it is also signed by the petitioner Udailal. He got these articles melted. He handed over 2 pieces of silver and gold to the Police which were seized under Ex. P. 6. 5. Apart from that the prosecution has examined Gauri Shankar P.W. 3 and Nanu Bheel PW 4 to prove an alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner to them. He got these articles melted. He handed over 2 pieces of silver and gold to the Police which were seized under Ex. P. 6. 5. Apart from that the prosecution has examined Gauri Shankar P.W. 3 and Nanu Bheel PW 4 to prove an alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner to them. Gauri Shankar has stated that Udailal had come to his well and he had told him that Chaturbhuj was going to make a report in the Police and Gauri Shankar may get the matter compromised. The witness called Chaturbhuj and the petitioner stated that he was willing to pay Rs. 1000/-. Chaturbhuj did not agree to it and demanded Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner wanted some time of a day or two but thereafter he did not return. Nanu Bheel deposed that Chaturbhuj had asked him to impress upon the petitioner to return the ornaments. The petitioner is stated to have told the witness that he will return the same. Both the trial court as well as the Sessions Judge believed the evidence of Kishansingh P.W. 9 about the sale of silver and golden ornaments by the petitioner to Kishansingh on February 22,1973, under the documents Exs. P. 8 and P. 9. They also accepted the prosecution version about extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the petitioner. It is difficult to accept the prosecution case about extra judicial confession for the reason that there is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that the petitioner had admitted before Gauri Shankar, Nanu Bheel or Chaturbhuj that he had committed theft of the ornaments from the house of Chaturbhuj. The confession should be of the offence All that Gaurishanker and Nanu Bheel have stated is that Chaturbhuj was going to make a report in the Police and Gaurishanker may get the matter compromised. Nanu Bheel has said that the petitioner has not said that he had committed the theft. In such circumstances the conviction of the petitioner could not be based on the alleged extra judicial confession. 6. However, there is evidence of Kishan Singh P.W. 9, who has categorically stated that the petitioner had sold golden tops and some other golden articles weighing 11 grams net for Rs. 286/- and silver ornaments weighing 11 grams for Rs. In such circumstances the conviction of the petitioner could not be based on the alleged extra judicial confession. 6. However, there is evidence of Kishan Singh P.W. 9, who has categorically stated that the petitioner had sold golden tops and some other golden articles weighing 11 grams net for Rs. 286/- and silver ornaments weighing 11 grams for Rs. 202/- to him on February 22, 1973 and memorandum in that respect was also drawn which are Exs.P. 8 and P. 9 and both of them are signed by the petitioner. No cross-examination was made with the witness disputing the signature of the petitioner on Exs. P.8 and P.9. There is also evidence of Santosh Kumar P.W. 8 that on that very day the petitioner had purchased a radio from him under the bill Ex. P. 7 and the petitioner had paid the amount in cash. So also Liladhar P.W. 11 has stated that on February 23, 1973 the petitioner had purchased a wrist watch from him for Rs. 90/-. The petitioner has admitted these purchases in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he has stated that he purchased these articles from his own amount. There is no escape from Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 which are signed by the petitioner himself and there is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to from where he had brought the golden and silver ornaments sold by him to Kishansingh in Ex. P.8 and Ex. P. 9. The petitioner got an amount of Rs. 488/- on February 22, 1973 and on the very next day he purchased a radio and a wrist watch. Had the petitioner been so rich as to have offered to purchase a radio and the wrist watch on the very next day i.e. on February 23, 1973 there would have been no necessity for him to sell the ornaments for the purpose. In my view it is established that the petitioner was in possession of the stolen ornaments of Chaturbhuj soon after the theft which he sold to Kishansingh and he has not been able to explain his possession of the sold articles. It shall, therefore, be presumed that either he was a thief himself and had stolen these articles or he was a Receiver of the stolen property. It shall, therefore, be presumed that either he was a thief himself and had stolen these articles or he was a Receiver of the stolen property. In my view the courts below rightly held the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 380 I.PC. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged offence was committed in the year 1973 and the petitioner has been facing this protracted criminal litigation for the last 13 years and it would not be just to send him to jail after such a long time. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case I think that sentence of fine would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, modify the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge in this way that the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, out of which Rs. 3000/- shall be paid to Chaturbhuj complainant. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The petitioner is allowed one months time to deposit the fine before the trial court. 6. Revision is thus pastly allowed.