P. K. JAIN, J. By judgment and order dated 19-3-79 Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba convicted Sripat and Parasuwa under Sections 457 and 392, I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo one years R. I. under Section 457, I. P. C. and two years R. I. under Section 392, IPC Phullan was convicted under Section 411, I. P. C. and Sripat was also further convicted under Section 411, IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo two years R. I. under Section 411, IP C, Criminal Appeal Nos. 53 of 1979 filed by Sripat and Parasuwa and 56 of 1979 filed by Phullan were dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, by judgment and order dated 23- 12-83. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court the three convicts have filed the above criminal revisions. 3. An incident of robbery had taken place between the night of 19/20-2-1977 at the house of first informant Kriparam. It was alleged that four miscreants entered his house, one of whom was flashing torch and the miscreants were armed with Lathi and Danda. They threatened the inmates of the house and committed robbery of jewellery and house-hold goods. There was light of lantern and lamp inside the house besides the torch light in which three of the miscreants were recognized by the complainant and the witnesses. They were Deoki son of Phullan, Sripat and Parasuwa. On hue and cry a number of witnesses assembled at the scene of occur rence, some of whom also recognized the three miscreants. 4. Report of this incident was lodged by P. W. 1 Kripa Ram at police station Mahob Kanth on 20-2-77 at 12. 15 a. m. and a case under Section 392, IPC was registered. During investigation Phullan was arrested by Sri Raj Pal Singh Chauhan in presence of witnesses on 23-3-77 at about 11. 00 a. m. From his possession six silver bangles and some other silver orna ments were recovered which were alleged ly looted in the said robbery. Sripat was arrested on 21-2-77 and from his house he produced two Lota, two Bela and three tumblers said to have been looted in the said robbery. The recovered articles were put up for test identification on 21-1-78. The identification proceedings were con ducted by Executive Magistrate Sri R. N. Misra. Sripat was arrested on 21-2-77 and from his house he produced two Lota, two Bela and three tumblers said to have been looted in the said robbery. The recovered articles were put up for test identification on 21-1-78. The identification proceedings were con ducted by Executive Magistrate Sri R. N. Misra. Kripa Ram identified all the articles correctly except one Lota and one Gilas. Smt. Sona Bai correctly identified all the articles except one Lota and two Gilas and witness Surendra Babu correctly iden tified all the articles except one Lota and one Gilas. 5. After usual investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the present revisionists alongwith some other miscreants. 6. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 457 and 392 IPC against Parasuwa and Sripat and under Section 411, IPC against Sripat and Phullan. The revisionists denied the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. 7. To establish the charges against the revisionists the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Kripa Ram, P. W. 2 Surendra Babu, P. W. 3 Smt. Sona Bai, P. W. 4 Man Mohan, R. W. 5 Ram Sujan, all witnesses of fact, P. W. 6 H. C. Ram Swarup Misra, scribe of the check report and relevant G. D. entries. P. W. 7 Jhandu, P. W. 9 Lallu and P. W. 10 Constable Ram Sewak with regard to the alleged recovery from the possession of Phullan, P. W. 8 Paragi Lal with regard to the arrest of and recovery from Sripat. The prosecution also examined P. W. 11 Con stable Chhote Lal, a formal witness, P. W. 12 Constable Ram Pal Singh, a witness of arrest and recovery from Sripat and P. W. 13 S. L Raj Pal Singh, the Investigating Officer as well as a witness of arrest of Sripat and Phullan. 8. Jagdish Prasad, Head Moharrir, was also examined as R. W. 1. 9. The trial Court believing the evidence of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the revisionists as stated above. 10. The revisions are pressed mainly on the ground that so far as the recovery from Parasuwaa is concerned it is of doubt ful character and besides this it was recovered from the house which was in joint possession of others. 9. The trial Court believing the evidence of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the revisionists as stated above. 10. The revisions are pressed mainly on the ground that so far as the recovery from Parasuwaa is concerned it is of doubt ful character and besides this it was recovered from the house which was in joint possession of others. Hence, revisionists can not be said to be in ex clusive possession of the properly; that the property was put up for test identification 11 months after the alleged recovery and the prosecution has not produced the original identification memo nor the Magistrate, who held the identification proceeding, has been examined. Hence identification evidence can not be ac cepted. As regards offence under Sections 457 and 392, IPC, it is contended that Parasuwa is aged about 60 years and Sripat is aged about 55 years and the incident had occurred about 20 years back. The revisionists have been in jail for sometime. Therefore, after lapse of 20 years no useful purpose shall be served by sending them to jail again. The learned Counsel for the revisionists contends that the sentence of imprisonment may be converted to that of fine. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that so far as convic tion under Sections 392 and 457, IPC is concerned, there is absolutely no infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court. Learned Additional Government Advo cate fairly concedes that in view of the defects in prosecution evidence with regard to offence under Section 411, IPC, the revisionists could not have been con victed under Section 411, IPC. 11, So far as revisionist Phullan is concerned, he has been convicted only under Section 411, IPC. Some ornaments are said to have been recovered from his possession. The evidence of recovery was found to be consistent and was rightly believed by the Courts below. However, the identification evidence is defective. Original memo of identification has not been produced nor the Magistrate, who held the identification proceedings, was examined by the prosecution. As already pointed out above, the identification proceedings were held on 21-1-78 that is, about 10 or 11 months after the alleged recovery. The witnesses have not iden tified some of the articles, though alleged to be looted at the time of the alleged incident. As already pointed out above, the identification proceedings were held on 21-1-78 that is, about 10 or 11 months after the alleged recovery. The witnesses have not iden tified some of the articles, though alleged to be looted at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, the evidence of iden tification cannot be acted upon. 12, As regards revisionist, Parasuwa the recovery is said to have been made from his house. It has come in evidence-that the lock of the room was opened by Parasuwa with a key which was in his pos session. The Arresting Officer has not taken into possession the key nor any ex planation has been furnished what hap pened to the key. Both the Courts below have failed to take notice of this fact. Be sides this, the recovery was made from the house at the pointing out of the accused Parasuwa. It was come in evidence that other members of the family lived in the house. Even though, Parasuwa had knowledge of the articles being in the house, it can not be said with certainly that he was in exclusive possession of the same. In a case of joint possession, one can not be convicted of the offence under Section 411, IPC for receiving-or retaining stolen property unless it is proved that the property was kept by him or retained by him knowing it to be stolen property. 13, Learned Counsel for the revisionists has not challenged the convic tion of the revisionists Parasuwa and Sripat under Sections 392 and 457, IPC and on careful examination of the record I find no infirmity in the findings of the trial Court in this regard. The record, however, discloses that Parasuwa and Sripat were arrested on 21-2-77. Sripat was released on bail on 26-2-77 whereas Parasuwa was released on bail on 7-4-77. Thereafter, on appeal being dismissed on 23-12-83. both the revisionists is were taken into custody and they were granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 6-1-84 and were released subsequently. The record further shows that Parasuwa was 30years old at the time of his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC. was recorded and Sripat was 21 years old. parasuwa must now be 50 years and Sripat around 41-42 years. The record further shows that Parasuwa was 30years old at the time of his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC. was recorded and Sripat was 21 years old. parasuwa must now be 50 years and Sripat around 41-42 years. After lapse of more than 20 years, in my view, no useful purpose shall be served by sending the revisionists to jail in the aforesaid cir cumstances specially when nothing is brought on record to show that after the present incident the revisionists were in volved in any other crime of like nature or that they were previous convicts. There fore, the sentence of imprisonment al ready undergone and fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 457, IPC and Rs. 1,500 under Section 392, IPC would meet the ends of justice. 14. In view of the discussions made above, Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1984 is partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionists under Sections 457 and 392, IPC is maintained. Conviction of Parasuwa under Section 411, IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Revisionists Sripat and Parasuwa are sen tenced to undergo imprisonment for the period they have already been in jail and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 457, IPC and Rs. 1,500 under Sec tion 392, IPC each and in case of default in payment of fine they will undergo im prisonment for a period of 4 months and 6 months respectively on each count. They are granted one months time from today to deposit the amount of fine. 15. Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1984 is allowed. Conviction of the revisionist Phullan under Section 411, IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Order accordingly. .