ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE revisional application has been preferred for setting aside the judgement and order dated 30-7-93 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, I in G. R. Case No. 3 of 1981 (T. R. Case No. 212 of 1981) convicting the accused petitioner and sentencing him to imprisonment for one month on each count. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Constable attached to Calcutta Police. It has been alleged that there was an F. I. R. against him and another Sakti Kumar Goswami to the effect that on 13-12-80 they accosted Ananta Kumar Singh, an employee of Arjun Soni of M/s. Abiskar Electronics of Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta at Ezra Street while he was going with 11 (eleven) pieces of H. M. T. Wrist Watches and 10 (ten) pieces of H. M. V. Record Players posing themselves as Officers of Detective Department, Calcutta and was made to Board a Taxi being W. B. T. 1886 on Brabourne Road, assuring that they were going to the Police Station. They were reportedly taken to Birla Planatorium where the petitioners and his companion is reported to have a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from Ananta Kumar Singh for releasing Wrist Watches and Records. It has also been averred in the F. I. R. that as he has no money with him, he was asked to bring the same from his employer in order to get back the articles. Ananta Kumar Singh then contacted his employer and both of them came near Birla Planatorium but they did not find the accused persons there. On 3-1-81 the petitioner and his companion are reported to have been caught by Ananta Kr. Singh, Arjun Singh and Mahendra Rakhi while they were passing along Chitpur Road near Nakhoda Masjid. The petitioner and his companion were brought to Hare Street Police Station and from there they were taken to Hastings Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. It has also been alleged that on a search of the petitioner's house four H. M. T. Wrist Watches and five Record Players were recovered. One Wrist Watch was recovered from the other accused, two Wrist Watches were recovered from one Bhola Samanto and another from Radha Charan Chatterjee. The accused persons were put under arrest. It has also been alleged that on a search of the petitioner's house four H. M. T. Wrist Watches and five Record Players were recovered. One Wrist Watch was recovered from the other accused, two Wrist Watches were recovered from one Bhola Samanto and another from Radha Charan Chatterjee. The accused persons were put under arrest. During trial 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the Ld. Magistrate found the accused persons including the petitioner guilty under Section 170/411/392 by 34, I. P. C. and they were sentenced in the manner as stated earlier. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that there were no element of the offences under the Sections for which they have been charged and found guilty, that then the proceeding continued for more than 12 years, that important witnesses were not examined and that the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Magistrate is not supported by the evidence on record. ( 4 ) I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocates for the petitioner and also the Ld. Advocate appearing for the State. It has been argued for the petitioner that two most important witnesses namely, the Taxi Driver and Bhola Samanto have not been examined. It is alleged that as per the evidence of the I. O. , the Taxi Driver was interrogated during investigation but he was not made a witness in the charge-sheet. So far as Bhola Samanto to concerned, the allegation is that the accused persons disposed of some Wrist Watches to him and subsequently one piece was recovered from his possession. It has also been criticised that Ananta Kr. Singh, the alleged employer of Arjun Singh has not been examined. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued for the State that necessary witnesses have been examined and evidence on record was sufficient to come to the conclusion about the guilt of the present petitioner and his companion. ( 6 ) I have carefully scrutinised the evidence given by the witnesses and also the conclusion drawn by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The (sic) material against the present petitioner and his companion appears in the evidence given by P. W. 6, Ananta Kr. Singh. He has given graphic account of the incident on 13-12-80. ( 6 ) I have carefully scrutinised the evidence given by the witnesses and also the conclusion drawn by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The (sic) material against the present petitioner and his companion appears in the evidence given by P. W. 6, Ananta Kr. Singh. He has given graphic account of the incident on 13-12-80. The accused' persons are reported to have identified themselves as Officer attached to Detective Department on the strength of a Police Belt and the Police Monogram. Subsequently, a witness and two others caught hold of the accused persons on 3-11-81 and on the self-same date there were recovered of some Wrist Watches and Records from the residence of both the accused. The Police Belt with Monogram was also recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. The evidence given by this witness finds support from the evidence of P. W. 7 so far as, it relates to the incident of 3-1-81 when the accused persons were caught by three persons including P. W. 6 and P. W. 7. The evidence of P. W. 5 also supports the guilt of the accused persons inasmuch as the companion of the present accused petitioner is reported to have handed over Wrist Watch being one of the Wrist Watches which are the subject-matter of the offence for the purpose safe keeping after taking a loan of Rs. 200/ -. Both P. Ws. 6 and 7 were extensively cross-examined but nothing came but so as to damage the prosecution case. Evidence of P. W. 8 also lends support to the prosecution story, so far as it relates to seizure of some of the stolen articles from the residence of the present petitioner. ( 7 ) THERE is nothing unusual for non-examination of Arjun Singh since it is on record that he died before the trial was concluded. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner also argued much about the mention of H. M. V. Records and H. M. V. Record Players at different places. From this it was argued that the two articles being completely of different type, such discrepancy amounts to serious infirmity so as to disbelieve the prosecution story. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner also argued much about the mention of H. M. V. Records and H. M. V. Record Players at different places. From this it was argued that the two articles being completely of different type, such discrepancy amounts to serious infirmity so as to disbelieve the prosecution story. It is true, that in some places H. M. V. Record Players have been mentioned in the evidence but this is a clerical mistake purely and simply having regard to the F. I. R. and also the contents of the seizure list. ( 8 ) CONSIDERABLE argument has also been made about the delay in lodging the F. I. R. It has been argued that the alleged incident took place on 13-12-80 but the F. I. R. was made at a much later date, the formal F. I. R. is no doubt dated 29-12-80 as formed the basis Hastings P. S. Case No. 43 but the written complaint made by Arjun Singh, Proprietor, M/s. Abiskar Electronics of which Arjun Singh was the employee is dated 15-12-80. The said F. I. R. was made at Hare Street Police Station. It will appear from the evidence of P. W. 14, the I. O. , that the F. I. R. was initially made at Hare Street Police Station and subsequently on the point of jurisdiction it was send to Hastings Police Station where it was recorded on 29-12-80. Therefore, the F. I. R. must be said to have been made on 15-12-80 whereas the alleged occurrence took place sometime in the afternoon of 13-12-80. As such the delay does not appear to be of substantial nature. ( 9 ) AFTER giving my careful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and after going through the impugned judgement, I do not find any infirmity in the same. ( 10 ) IT may, however, be stated that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate found the accused persons including the petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 170 and 392 by 34, I. P. C. but with a careful scrutiny of the judgement it also appears that he found them guilty also under Section 411, I. P. C. even though he did not think it necessary to pose any separate sentence. Metropolitan Magistrate found the accused persons including the petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 170 and 392 by 34, I. P. C. but with a careful scrutiny of the judgement it also appears that he found them guilty also under Section 411, I. P. C. even though he did not think it necessary to pose any separate sentence. It may also be stated that there was no move on the part of the prosecution for any enhancement of sentence and there was also no argument about the legality of the same. It is true, that the Ld. Magistrate has given the reasons for taking such lenient view so far as sentencing the accused persons which is due to the long pending nature of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons I also do not find any infirmity in the sentence as well. ( 11 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in the revisional application which is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.