Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision is directed by Mukesh Kumar accused against the judgment dated 24.7.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 10.1.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which he and his co-accused were found guilty and convicted under Section 411, IPC, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each was upheld. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner along with his co-accused Surinder Kumar on 21.4.1992 at Booth No. 106, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh had dishonestly kept in their possession motor cycle make Yamha bearing registration No. CHP 5849 belonging to Anil Kumar and another motor cycle make Bullet bearing registration No. CHP-3077 belonging to one Rajnish Gandhi knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. The petitioner and his co-accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan was put up in the Court. 3. Having made out a prima-facie case, the petitioner along with his co- accused was charged under Section 411, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution adduced its evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, the petitioner and his co-accused were found guilty and convicted under Section 411, IPC, and sentenced as stated above vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2000. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed. Still dissatisfied the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not the owner of the booth and there is no satisfactory evidence that the booth was possessed by him. He further contended that he was not remotely connected with Booth No. 106, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh and as such, the recovery of stolen property from him was not established. According to the prosecution version the petitioner along with his co-accused was apprehended at the chowk of Sectors 19, 20, 27 and 30 and one scooter was recovered from their possession. S.I. Prem Singh had interrogated Mukesh Kumar petitioner and he had made a disclosure statement, regarding concealment of the Bullet motor cycle and another Yamha motor cycle at the market of Sector-19, Chandigarh and then in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he get recovered motor cycle No. CHP- 5849 and another motor cycle No. CHP-3077 alongwith three other vehicles. S.I. Prem Singh had interrogated Mukesh Kumar petitioner and he had made a disclosure statement, regarding concealment of the Bullet motor cycle and another Yamha motor cycle at the market of Sector-19, Chandigarh and then in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he get recovered motor cycle No. CHP- 5849 and another motor cycle No. CHP-3077 alongwith three other vehicles. He had not been able to explain as to how these vehicles had come into his possession. The only inference is whether he had committed theft of these vehicles or he had received those vehicles as stolen property. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner is a young person and has got small children and is a first offender and the sentence awarded to him as harsh. So, a lenient view be taken against him. Keeping in view these submissions, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to 7 months R.I. With this modification in they sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed.