JUDGMENT This revision has been filed by the petitioners Badri and Bhura against their convictions under sections 380 and 454 of the I.P.C. and sentences of six months R.J. and fine of Rs. 250/- each on each count (in default 2 months imprisonment on each count), passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 109/88 vide judgment dated 25.5.90. The petitioners were tried on the charges under sections 457 and 380 of the IPC on the allegation that in the night of 9.8.83, they committed house tresspass by night in the house of complainant Midua in village Dhava, police station Chandla, District Chhatarpur and committed theft of silver ornaments belonging to the complainant. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested on 21.8.83 and the stolen property was recovered on their information from their houses. The trial Court on the basis of the recovery, of the stolen property on the information of the petitioners, held the petitioners guilty for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced them to one year R.T. and fine of Rs. 250/- each on each count in Criminal Original Case vide judgment dt.22.11.86. On appeal being filed by the petitioners, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide judgment dated 25.5.90 modified the convictions and sentences of the petitioners as stated above. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident of theft in the house of complainant Midua took place on 9.8.83 and the alleged seizure of the stolen silver ornaments was made from the petitioners on 21.8.83 that is after 12 days of the theft. He argued that in view of this time leg of 12 days between the theft and the seizure the Courts below have erred in drawing presumption under section 114-A of the Evidence Act for the offences under sections 380 and 454/457 of the J.P. C. According to Shri Sharma presumption at the most could have been drawn for an offence under section 411 of the I.P.C. Shri Khare, appearing for the State does not seriously dispute the correctness of the above submission of Shri Sharma. Admittedly there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioners with the act of house tresspass by night and theft. The entire prosecution case rests on the seizure of stolen property from the possession of the petitioners. Admittedly there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioners with the act of house tresspass by night and theft. The entire prosecution case rests on the seizure of stolen property from the possession of the petitioners. In view of the time lag of 12 days between the theft and the seizure this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below have erred in drawing a presumption for offences under Sections 457/454 and 3800fthe I.P.C. In the above facts at the most presumption for an offence under section 411 of the I.P.C. may be drawn to the effect that the petitioners were receiver of the stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same as stolen property. Shri Sharma submitted that the petitioners have already undergone sentences of about 3 months and they may be not be sent back to jail after 11 years. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed in part. The convictions of the petitioners under sections 380 and 454 of the I.P.C. are hereby set a side. Instead they are convicted under section 411 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them which is about 3 months. Fine, if already deposited by the petitioner, be refunded to them. The petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged. The orders of the Courts below about disposal of property are not in dispute in this revision and as such are maintained.