JUDGMENT : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter "the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No.25/2010 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jahajpur, Bhilwara (hereinafter "the trial court") vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.409/2000. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC and awarded each of them sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment under each offences with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count and in default of payment of fine ordered to further undergo three months additional imprisonment each. 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 06.05.2000 the complainant Dwarka Prasad (PW-1) lodged a written report at Police Station Jahajpur to the effect that on 05.05.2000 in the night he went to sleep as usual after locking the doors of his house. In the morning at about 4:30 am when his wife woke up, she found that theft had taken place in the house and articles including gold and silver ornaments and cash etc. were taken away. 3. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered FIR No.152/2000 for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 457, 380/34 IPC and against accused Prahlad for offence under Section 411 IPC. Thereafter the trial court took cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 4. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned trial court framed charges against accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 457, 380/34, 411 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses and produced documentary evidences viz Exb-P/1 to Exb-P/45 in support of its case. Thereafter the statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined by the accused-petitioners. 6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 acquitted the accused Prahlad Rai for all the charges but convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as aforesaid. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined by the accused-petitioners. 6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 acquitted the accused Prahlad Rai for all the charges but convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioners preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, who by his judgment dated 10.11.2014 upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioners recorded by the learned trial Court, as aforesaid. Hence, this revision. 8. Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan, appearing for the accused-petitioners has submitted that judgments passed by the courts below are incorrect, improper and illegal and therefore the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the gold items and ornaments which were reportedly theft were not produced before the Court below during the course of trial. Neither the recovered items were marked nor those items were shown during the course of trial and therefore opportunity to cross-examine regarding identification of gold items and ornaments was not properly granted to the petitioners. It is submitted that neither the recovery of ornaments is proved properly nor factum of identification of the recovered articles proved either by the complainant or others. A bare perusal of the statement of Bhagirath Sharma (PW-27) reveals that even identification is not made as per the prescribed procedure. It is submitted that none of the eye witnesses to the occurrence has identified the petitioners yet the petitioners are connected with the crime on the basis of recovery of ornaments which itself is not proved in the eye of law as independent witnesses to the recovery have not supported the prosecution case and only the police personnel have supported the prosecution. Further the petitioners were connected with the crime three months after the reporting of alleged crime unnecessarily. No bills of the gold articles recovered were submitted and thus the identification of the theft items is doubtful. Twice the recovery was made at the same place from the petitioners. Counsel submitted that the witness Chaturbhuj (PW-9) has turned hostile. Counsel further argued that the test identification was conducted by Bhagirath Sharma (PW-27), who was not a Judicial Magistrate and therefore the said identification report cannot be said to be a valid report. Twice the recovery was made at the same place from the petitioners. Counsel submitted that the witness Chaturbhuj (PW-9) has turned hostile. Counsel further argued that the test identification was conducted by Bhagirath Sharma (PW-27), who was not a Judicial Magistrate and therefore the said identification report cannot be said to be a valid report. In the circumstances, the counsel for the accused-petitioners has prayed that the accused-petitioners may be acquitted for the aforesaid offences. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment passed by the courts below and submits that the trial court as well as appellate court have recorded finding of guilt against the petitioners on the basis of evidence on record. It is submitted that the stolen articles were recovered from the accused-petitioners. It is argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and since the petitioners are habitual offenders there is no occasion either to interfere with the concurrent findings and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners by the learned Courts below nor any sympathy is called for in the said case. 10. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below as also the evidence on record. 11. Bhagirath Sharma (PW-27) in his statement has adduced that on 06.09.2000 he was working as Tehsildar cum Magistrate. Exhibit-P/9 is test identification report. Witnesses identified their items during test identification. Jai Singh Nathaval (PW-29), the Investigating Officer has specifically stated that the test identification was conducted in the presence of Executive Magistrate. In view of above facts, it can be said that the identification is made as per the prescribed procedure. The stolen articles were recovered from the accused-petitioner and they are connected with the crime on the basis of recovery or ornaments. The petitioners are habitual offenders. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses nor there is any reason to falsely implicate the accused-petitioners. 12. When there is a case of theft, the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either a thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, vide illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 12. When there is a case of theft, the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either a thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, vide illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Any recovery which has been made in pursuance to the information furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is admissible in evidence and is a sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused by virtue of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and its illustration (a). Section 114 deals with presumption with regard to existence of certain facts, which have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. Illustration (a) of this Section provides as under: "The Court may presume- (a) 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." 13. The words "soon after" occurring in this illustration has a wide connotation. It depends upon the evidence, direct or circumstantial of each case. This presumption can be drawn only when there is a prima facie proof of its stealing. Though there are various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court that such recovery should be made without any span of delay but when the accused are absconding and recoveries have been made one after the other, when the accused had been arrested, it was not held to be fatal. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446 has held that the nature of the presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time-limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise. Each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according "as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand". No fixed time-limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise. Each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according "as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand". If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed could not be said to be too long particularly when the Appellant had been absconding during that period. In view of above, the findings arrived by both the courts below does not call for any interference. Hence, the revision petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.