Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16-6-1994 passed by the then Sessions Judge. Singh- bhura, East, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 28-3-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Glass, Jamshedpur in G. R. Case No. 1169-A of 1988 (Trial No. 203 of 1992). By that original judgment, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 411, IPC. and sentenced to undergo R. J. for six months. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was in custody after the arrest at the initial stage for about 16 days and then he was granted bail and during the period, he was on bail. 2. Prosecution case was that in some time past, it was observed that there is pilferage and theft of materials from the godown of Burma Mines of B. M.P.11 and then two officials of B. M. P. 11. namely Havildar, Sheo Prasad Singh and constable Rajendra Singh were deputed for keeping watch. In the night of 5-8-1988, they noticed that three persons were committing theft of 25 length iron rod from the back side of the main building. Those three thieves were followed by the said two watchmen and they noticed that the stolen iron rods were kept in the house of the petitioner-Ramanand Singh. Accordingly, they went to the house of Ramanand Singh and raised alarm and arrested the petitioner along with one other person, who disclosed his name as Shyama Narayan Ram. The other two thieves filed away. The stolen iron rod were seized from the house of petitioner-Ramand Singh and an F.I.R. was lodged by the Principal S. I. Bhola Nath Singh of B.M.P. 11 with the Golmuri Police Station. During the course of investigation, charge-sheet was sbmitted against four accused persons including the petitioner under Section 379/411, IPC. All the four accused were charged under Section 379 I.P.C. and Ramanand Singh, the petitioner was further charged under Section 411,I.P.C. During the course of trial, Shyama Narain Ramfabsconded and jumped out bail and his trial was separated and other three accused including the petitioner were tried together. The learned Magistrate after scrutinising the evidence on record held that the charge under Section 379. The learned Magistrate after scrutinising the evidence on record held that the charge under Section 379. I. P. C. could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons he but held the petitioner, Ramanand Singh guilty under 411, I.P.G. and he has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. In all five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution amongst whom one seizure list witness did not support the prosecution case. He stated that at the time of seizure of the iron rod, he was not present at the scene of the occurrence. On appeal being made before the Sessions Judge the learned appellate court on independent scrutiny of the evidence on record arrived at the same finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charge under Section 411, I.P.G. 4. The plea of theft under Section 379,IPC as raised by the prosecution was found to be true but on technical grounds, the charge against the accused persons could not be said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. But that the iron rod seized from the house of Ramanand Singh was found to be stolen article and when Ramanand Singh could not give any explanation of the possession of stolen article, he was found guilty under Section 411, I.P.G. 5. Mr. Jha appearing on behalf of the revisionist has streoeously argued that when the charge under Section 379, I.P.C. failed against the petitioner and other co-accused, the conviction under Section 411, I.P.C. against this petitioner is bad in ths eye of law. I do not find any force in this plea. If the ingredients as contemplated under Section 411 I.P.C. are found to be proved then a person can be convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. and there can be no bar legally. 6. The ingredients of Section 411, I.P.C, which the prosecution is bound to prove are : (i) that the property in question is a stolen property ; (ii) that the accused received or retained such property ; (iii) that he did so dishonestly. In the present case, following the thieves and tbe iron rod, the stolen article could be found in possession of the petitioner. There was no time gap in recovery of the stolen article from the actual theft. In the present case, following the thieves and tbe iron rod, the stolen article could be found in possession of the petitioner. There was no time gap in recovery of the stolen article from the actual theft. In such a position, the first ingredien that the iron rod was stolen property could be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. About the second and third ingredients, the petitioner in the whole of the trial, never took any plea of having possession of the article on good faith or honestly rather the plea was total denial of the seizure of the article from his house. Thus the prosecution could be able to prove all the three ingredients against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. 7 It is stated in the bar that it is an impossibility that a poor man living in a small room as a Cbowkidar could be able to retain 25 long iron rod concealed in his house. It is not the case that the stolen iron rod was kept concealed and on search it could be found out rather it could be recovered immediately after the thieves had delivered it to the petitioner and then he was caught red handed. So in the circumstances, I do not find any impropriety or incorrect finding by the learned courts below rather both the courts had scrutinised evidence independently and then arrived at the same finding. There is no scope of revising the judgment of conviction and hence the same is held to be legal and proper. But, with regard to the sentence, it is found that the petitioner is suffering from acute cancer and he is at the verge of death. Considering such position, the sentence is minimised to the period already undergone. 8. The revision petition is thus rejected with the modification of the sentence as mentioned above. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner at the time of admission of this revision petition is hereby cancelled. Revision rejected after modification of sentence.