JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 411, I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of two years, R. 1. for having been in possession of a stolen Scooter which was recovered from the applicant's possession. Both the courts of fact. However, Sri R. C. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant cited two decisions to contend that since in the instant case the Investigating Officer also happened to be the Recovering Officer, the recovery should be disbelieved and, therefore, the applicant should be acquitted. In Jwala Singh v. State, 1988 (25) ACC 345 a learned Single Judge had held that since the two public witnesses namely, Uma Shanker Singh and Ram Bahoran Singh had not supported the recovery, therefore, the Sub-Inspector who made the recoveries and simultaneously investigated the case would not be relied upon. The said case, therefore, is distinguishable. 2. In Pir Bux v. State, 1980 (17) ACC 187 a learned Single Judge while dealing with a case of recovery of illicit arms held that there was no sanction by the District Magistrate and that there was no evidence of personal search of the accused in that case and thus disbelieved the recovery. The acquittal was not recorded only on the ground that the Recovering Officer was the Investigating Officer. This case, therefore, also is distinguishable. 3. In the instant case loss of Scooter bearing Registration No. DBO-7361 belonging to Arvind Kumar Tewari is sufficiently proved. The loss occurred on 28.7.1987 near the Excise Office whereas the said Scooter was recovered from the applicant's possession on 2.8.1987 i.e. within five days. It is true that P.W. 4, Ram Pragat who was Recovering Officer also investigated the case but his evidence has been fully corroborated by P.W. 3, D.S. Yadav who was a constable accompanying the Inspector. A recovery memo was prepared which mentioned the details of the Engine, chassis and registration number of the Scooter. This tallied with the description of the Scooter given by Arvind Kumar Tewari. Consequently, in the instant case the recovery of the stolen Scooter within five days is enough proof. of the genuineness of the recovery., During cross-examination nothing has been brought out against either of the two witnesses to discredit their evidentiary value. 4. This tallied with the description of the Scooter given by Arvind Kumar Tewari. Consequently, in the instant case the recovery of the stolen Scooter within five days is enough proof. of the genuineness of the recovery., During cross-examination nothing has been brought out against either of the two witnesses to discredit their evidentiary value. 4. Sri R. C. Yadav then argued that the applicant is a young man and the sentence of two years R. I. appears to be excessive particularly keeping in view the fact that the applicant gave out his age as 20 years which has not been adversely commented upon by the Magistrate as 25 years. Under the circumstances Sri Yadav has prayed that the sentence be reduced to as much as possible. 5. Sri D. N. Yadav, learned A.G.A. has, however, objected to the said prayer and insisted that the offence appears to be serious one and no reduction in sentence is called for. 6. Looking at the over all facts and circumstances of the present case the conviction of the applicant under Section 411, I.P.C. is upheld but his sentence is reduced to one year's R. 1. The applicant is in jail who will serve out the sentence under Section 411, I.P.C. as modified by this Court. 7. The revision is dismissed with the aforesaid modification of sentence.