JUDGMENT : No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. Since the matter is of the year 2001 the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on records. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge-Cum-A.J.C., Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 398 of 1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years has been affirmed. 4. It appears that a First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on receiving confidential information the shop of the petitioner was raided and from where five engines of water pump were recovered. No valid papers for the same were produced and the engines of water pump were suspected to be stolen property. Consequent to such allegation G. R. Case No. 398 of 1999 was instituted. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after framing of charge trial proceeded. After conclusion of trial the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2001 which however was dismissed on 28.08.2001 by the learned Special Judge-cum-A.J.C., Ranchi. 5. The defence during trial has taken a plea that the petitioner was a licensee and was dealing in scrap and the engines of water pump which were seized from the shop of the petitioner were not the stolen property. Further plea has been taken with respect to the competency of the Investigating Officer to investigate the case as he was also a member of the raiding party. The petitioner has also claimed that no independent witnesses were examined and proper reliance had not been placed on the evidence of D.W. -1 who was examined on behalf of the defence. 6. It appears that in course of investigation five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. The petitioner has also claimed that no independent witnesses were examined and proper reliance had not been placed on the evidence of D.W. -1 who was examined on behalf of the defence. 6. It appears that in course of investigation five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W. 1, Abhay Kumar Jha, is the informant who had stated that on receiving confidential information a raid was conducted in the scrap shop of the petitioner pursuant to which five engines of water pump were recovered. This witness has also deposed that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence nor any document was produced with respect to the engines of the water pump are concerned. This witness has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit – 1, the First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit – 2 and the endorsement made on the First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit – 3. 8. P.W. 2, Parashnath Jaiswal and P.W. -3, Daulat Ram Prajapati are the seizure list witnesses who have admitted their signature on the seizure list and had denied the recovery of the engines. 9. P.W. 4, Sheo Kumar Pathak, is the Investigating Officer who was also the member of the raiding party and who after investigation has submitted charge-sheet. 10. P.W. 5, Ramadhar Singh, has produced the material exhibits before the court below which were marked as Exhibit 1 to 5. 11. A lone defence witness has been examined namely Narendra Kumar Lal (D.W.-1) who had stated that the petitioner was having a trade licence to deal with scrap and the engines which have been seized belong to the petitioner. Although the seizure list witnesses being P.W. 2 and P.W. -3 have not supported the prosecution case in its totality but that by itself could not dilute the prosecution case in view of the evidence of the informant (P.W. -1) as well as the Investigating Officer (P.W. -4) who was also the member of the raiding party and who have seized the articles from the scrap shop of the petitioner. Although the defence had strenuously argued about the petitioner being a licensee dealing in scrap but nothing has been produced to suggest that the engines in question were purchased by the petitioner. 12. Although the defence had strenuously argued about the petitioner being a licensee dealing in scrap but nothing has been produced to suggest that the engines in question were purchased by the petitioner. 12. The defence witness has also failed to state as to from whom the engines were purchased. The other plea which has been raised by the petitioner is with respect to the competency of the Investigating Officer to investigate the case being a member of the raiding party is simply negated on the ground that no previous enmity was proved and the Investigating Officer being a member of the raiding party was definitely competent to carry on the investigation to prove the innocence or otherwise of the petitioner. Learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have properly appreciated the materials available on record before convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the challenge which has been made to the order of conviction fails and the same is, hereby, sustained. 14. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1999. The subject matter of the case is of recovery of five engines of water pumps. The petitioner has also for sometime in custody and has suffered mental agony on account of the long pendency of the prosecution case. On consideration of the said fact the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 15. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.