ORDER : 1. The accused faced charge, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 457, and, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, upon, Police Challan No.841 of 2009, through, a decision, made thereon, on, 27.1.2012, convicted the accused, for the afore drawn charges. 2. Through, a, separate sentencing order, drawn on 27.1.2012, the learned Trial Magistrate, sentenced the accused, to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two years, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/, for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, and, in default of payment of fine, the accused stood sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment, for six months. Moreover, he has also sentenced the convict, to undergo simple imprisonment, extending upto, a period of one year, and, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/, for, the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, and, in default of payment of fine, he stood sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The accused convict, becoming aggrieved, from the afore drawn verdicts, of, conviction, and, sentences, supra, as became imposed upon him, constituted there against, an appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2012, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog. The learned First Appellate Court, through its verdict, made thereon, on 07.06.2012, declined to interfere with the verdict (supra), as made by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. However, the learned first Appellate Court modified the verdict, as drawn by the learned Trial Magistrate, only to the extent, that the accused convict shall undergo simple imprisonment of one year, instead of two years, for the commission of an offence, punishable under Section 457 of IPC. Nonetheless, the conviction and consequent therewith sentences, as, became imposed upon the accused, for the commission of an offence, punishable under Section 379 of IPC, hence, by the learned Trial Magistrate, remained un-interfered with, by the learned First Appellate Court. 4. The convict becomes aggrieved from the afore verdicts, as becomes drawn by both the learned Courts below, and consequently, has instituted the extant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. 5. 4. The convict becomes aggrieved from the afore verdicts, as becomes drawn by both the learned Courts below, and consequently, has instituted the extant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. 5. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a challan, for the commission of an offence(s) punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, came to be filed against the accused, wherein it has been alleged that, on 09.12.2008, at 6:30 p.m., when the complainant shut his shop and went to his house, he was informed telephonically, by one Amant Kumar, on the next morning at around 6:00 a.m, that his shop is open. Consequently, the complainant went to the shop and found that lock of the wooden plank put outside the shop is broken. Thereafter, he informed Nirmala Devi, Pradhan and Khem Singh, Up-Pradhan about the said incident and Khem Singh arrived at the spot. The articles lying inside the shop were checked, and, it was found that colour TV, Dish receiver, CD player with tape recorder of conic make, one stabilizer, one box containing 12 bottles of oil of Deepak brand, one box containing cigarettes box bearing mark Four Square, 30 packets of Beedi No. 1, washing soap 20 kgs, coins and currency notes worth Rs. 500/are missing. Regarding the, said incident, a, statement was made before HC Tek Chand, who sent the same to Police Station, where FIR was registered. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and after completing codal formalities, the accused was arrested, and, challan under the aforesaid Sections, came to be filed before the learned Trial Magistrate. 6. Since with respect to the afore drawn charges, against the accused, there are no credible ocular witnesses to the incriminatory occurrence. 7. Therefore, this Court has to test the validity of the pronouncement, as assailed before this Court, only on the premise, whether, the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery(ies), of, stolen property(ies), as made, through memos, respectively comprised, in Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D. 8. Ex.PW2/A, is a memo, drawn by the Investigating Officer, under Section 27 of Evidence Act, and, is signatured by the accused, and, also thereons exist the valid signatures, of, witnesses, thereto, namely, Khem Singh Verma, and, Chit Ram. 9. Ex.PW2/A, is a memo, drawn by the Investigating Officer, under Section 27 of Evidence Act, and, is signatured by the accused, and, also thereons exist the valid signatures, of, witnesses, thereto, namely, Khem Singh Verma, and, Chit Ram. 9. A perusal of Ex.PW2/A, discloses that the accused therein, making an echoing, with respect to his ensuring the recovery(ies) at his instance, of, the stolen property(ies) rather by the Investigating Officer, and, in the presence of the afore witnesses. In pursuance thereof, the accused, through memo, drawn in Ex.PW2/A, ensured recovery(ies), of, the stolen property(ies) from the site, as disclosed in Ex.PW2/B. Ex.PW2/B carries thereon(s), the signatures of the accused, and also, of the witnesses thereto, inasmuch as, of Khem Singh Verma, and, Chit Ram. 10. Though, any confession as made by the accused, before the Police Official, is not admissible in the evidence. However, when during the course of his custodial interrogation, he make(s), a, statement, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, before the Investigating Officer concerned, and, also make(s) narration(s) therein, that he shall ensure the recovery(ies), of, stolen property(ies), from the place, of, their hiding and keeping, rather by the Investigating Officer concerned. Therefore, when the afore confessional statement, does ultimately lead to recovery(ies), of, the stolen property(ies), by the Investigating Officer, at the instance of the accused. Consequently, incriminatory property(ies), as become recovered by the Investigating Officer, at the instance of accused, do constitute, valid recovery(ies) thereof, and or also, constitute evidence of immense probative sanctity. Moreover, obviously there through(s), the bar against admissibility, of, confessions, as, made to the Police Official, by the accused, during the latter’s custodial interrogation, does become relieved, and, also is a valid exception thereto. 11. Since, in pursuance to Ex.PW2/A, the accused, through memo, borne in Ex.PW2/B, ensured the recovery(ies), of, stolen property(ies), by the Investigating Officer, from the place of their hiding and keeping, by him, given the apposite place being solitarily within his knowledge. Therefore, the afore memos, borne in Ex.PW2/A, and in Ex.PW2/B, acquire an immense incriminatory vigor. 12. Though, the accused could erode the evidentiary vigor, of, the, memos (supra), through his denying his signatures carried thereons, however, he has rather admitted his signatures, as, carried, on both the memos (supra). 13. Therefore, the afore memos, borne in Ex.PW2/A, and in Ex.PW2/B, acquire an immense incriminatory vigor. 12. Though, the accused could erode the evidentiary vigor, of, the, memos (supra), through his denying his signatures carried thereons, however, he has rather admitted his signatures, as, carried, on both the memos (supra). 13. Furthermore, one of the witnesses, to, the afore drawn memos, namely, Khem Singh, has stepped into the witness, as PW2, and, in his examination-in-chief, has completely proven the drawings, of, the memos (supra) and also admitted the existence, of, his valid signatures thereon. Moreover, though during the course of his being subjected to the ordeal of a scathing cross-examination, though exculpatory suggestions became put to him, however, he denied all of them. Consequently, the testification, of, the afore witness to the memos (supra), acquires immense evidentiary vigor. 14. Moreover, through Ex.PW2/B, the accused ensured the recovery of Ex.P7, as became used by him, to, commit the offence, at the commercial establishment, of, the complainant. Ex.PW2/B carries thereon(s), the admitted signatures of the accused, and also, carries the valid signatures of the witnesses, thereto, inasmuch as, of, Khem Singh, and, of, Chit Ram. Neither the accused, nor the witnesses, namely, Khem Singh, denied the occurrence, of, their respective valid signatures thereon(s). Consequently, the drawing of Ex.PW2/D, by the Investigating Officer concerned, does also acquire the completest evidentiary vigor. Since, the afore documentary evidence completely, and, clinchingly proved the charges, rather drawn against the accused, therefore, no benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant petition, and, the same is dismissed, and, the impugned judgment, as recorded by the learned First Appellate is maintained and affirmed. The accused, if on bail in this case, be forthwith subjected to judicial custody, through, an, order being made by, the, learned Magistrate concerned. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Records of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.