Judgment G. L. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) KARNI Singh has preferred this revision against the appellate judgment D/- 8-10-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Ss. 454 and 380, I. P. C. and sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count. ( 2 ) ON 1-5-96 Arun Kumar, P. W. 1 had lodged a report alleging that burglary had taken place in his house No. 166, G-Block, Ganganagar, when he and his wife were away. It was alleged that the thief had taken away Rs. 82,000/- cash, silver and gold ornaments. On this report a case u/ss. 454 and 380, I. P. C. was registered. The police during investigation arrested two persons viz. Karni Singh and Rajesh Kumar and recovered the stolen property at their instance. After the completion of the investigation a challan was filed. Charges under Ss. 454, 380 and 411, I. P. C. were framed against both the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 Arun Kumar, P. W. 2 Smt. Neelam, P. W. 3 Praveen Kumar, P. W. 4 Samun Ali, P. W. 5 Mahendra Kumar, P. W. 6 Ramgopal, P. W. 7 Harbhajan Singh, P. W. 8 Kesari Chand, P. W. 9 Subhash Sawhney and P. W. 10 Rajendra Prasad. Accused in their statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. denied accusation. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate found the charges under Ss. 454 and 380, I. P. C. proved against both the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Accused Rajesh was also convicted under S. 25 (3) of the Arms Act. The appeal preferred by Karnisingh proved abortive. ( 3 ) MR. Garg contended that there is no evidence on record showing that the petitioner had entered into the house of Arun Kumar. As the recovery had taken place three months after the occurrence, he contended, the petitioner could be convicted under S. 411, I. P. C. only. He, however, did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. As the recovery had taken place three months after the occurrence, he contended, the petitioner could be convicted under S. 411, I. P. C. only. He, however, did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Mehta contended that the recovery of the stolen property was made within three months and, therefore, the presumption arises that the accused himself had committed the theft and he has been rightly convicted. ( 5 ) I have carefully considered the above arguments. P. W. 4 Suman Ali deposes that after the arrest of the petitioner he gave information Ex. P-7, and on the basis of this information he went to the house of the accused from where he took out currency notes, bracelet - made of gold, and silver ornaments which were recovered by him vide memo Ex. P-8. Subhash Sawhney P. W. 9 and Ramgopal P. W. 6 are the Motbirs of the recovery. They though have turned hostile yet admit that they had put signatures on the recovery memo. There could not be any reason for Suman Ali to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. It has not been asked in the cross-examination of Suman Ali that he had animus against the petitioner. By the evidence of Suman Ali and the recovery of Memo Ex. P-8, it is fully established that the currency notes, gold ornaments and silver ornaments were recovered in consequence of the information supplied by the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE property recovered at the instance of the petitioner has been identified by Arun Kumar and his wife Neelam to be their own. They had also identified the property in identification proceedings held by the Magistrate. In view of this evidence, it is fully established that the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Since both the presumptions are possible as per illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it is safe to raise the second presumption in the absence of any other evidence against the accused. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner was seen near the house of the complainant on the day the theft was committed. It is also to be noticed that the recovery was made some three months after the alleged theft. The conviction of the petitioner, therefore, u/s. 454 and 380, I. P. C. is not sustainable. He can be convicted only under S. 411, I. P. C. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is altered from Ss. 454 and 380, I. P. C. to S. 411, I. P. C. The sentence is reduced. The petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more.