THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.127 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 11.1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2003 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada confirming the order of conviction dated 16.4.2003 passed by the court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada whereby and whereunder the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each, while acquitting them for the offence under Section 380 IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that I town CCS, Kakinada received two complaints on 20.2.1999 and 21.5.1999 stating some unknown persons snatched away and committed theft of gold chains and they registered two crime numbers for the offence under Section 380 IPC. 3. That on 29.5.2001 at about 12.30 noon, A1 was apprehended near Fish Market, Jagannathapuram of Kakinada. The result of the investigation is that A1 after suffering heavy loss in readymade cloth business, has taken to crime. On information furnished by A1, stolen property in one of the crimes i.e. Crime No.39 of 1999 was recovered from A2. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and Mos 1 to 5. However, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. After the conclusion of the trial, A1 and A2 were found guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC and that they were not found guilty for the offence under Section 380 IPC and as such they were acquitted for the offence under the said Section. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that LWs 8 and 9, mediators to arrest and recovery panchanama were stock witnesses and that Exs.P.5 to P.9, mediators’ reports and identification report etc are fabricated. 7. However, no material was brought on record during the course of trial that PWs 6 was a stock witness. But, the fact remains that he is not from the locality where the accused were apprehended, however, that does not make any difference and will not in any way affect the prosecution case since he cannot be expected to have any necessity to speak falsehood against the accused. 8. A1 and A2 were found in possession of M.Os 1 to 5 which belong to PW.1 and PW.3. A1 and A2 failed to explain as to how they came in to possession of the M.Os 1 to 5. Therefore, the court is justified in drawing inference under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act. So far as identification of M.Os is concerned, PWs 1,3 were not cross examined to disprove the same. Even PW.6 was not cross examined to show that he is a stock witness. 9. A perusal of the evidence of PW.6 supports the prosecution case in material particulars. Moreover, the stolen property was identified by the complainants-owners. The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses points out that the accused were found in possession of the stolen property that was recovered in the presence of mediators. Therefore, it attracted the provisions of Section 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act as well as that of Section 411 IPC and consequently, the trial court has convicted them for the offence under Section 411 IPC while acquitting them for other offence as already stated hereinabove. The trial court is also justified in not considering their plea under the Probation of Offenders Act as they were proved to be habitual offenders. 10. In the circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners-accused that identification parade was held between two police stations and that PW.7, and other Police personnel were present, are not the circumstances to affect the prosecution case. Even non-examination of scribe of arrest and recovery panchnama is not fatal to the case of prosecution. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this revisional court is of the opinion that the judgment of the first appellate court does not suffer from any legal infirmities in confirming the trial court’s order of conviction of the revision petitioners-accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and the same does not in any way warrant interference from this court. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp