JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This is a most extraordinary case. Both the Petitioners have been convicted for being in possession of certain stolen ornaments. It does not appear that it was ever seriously disputed that the ornaments were actually stolen during a burglary committed in the complainant's house. It was not also disputed that they were actually recovered from the possession of the third accused person, namely Umesh, who was convicted at the original trial but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal. Umesh said that he had purchased the ornaments in good faith from the two Petitioners. Now the remarkable feature of the case is this that the prosecution produced absolutely no evidence to show that these ornaments were ever in the possession of either of the Petitioners. There was, therefore, no justification for framing a charge against them. They have in fact been found guilty upon the evidence given by two persons called by Umesh to give evidence on his behalf. The Petitioners were not given any opportunity to cross-examine them and it is quite obvious that if the prosecution really intended to rely upon this, they should have examined these witnesses themselves. Another unsatisfactory feature of this conviction is that there is no evidence of any guilty knowledge on the part of the Petitioners. The plain fact of the matter is that the ornaments were actually recovered from Umesh. Therefore it would be quite reasonable to draw a presumption of guilty knowledge against him. But it is not so reasonable to do so in the case of persons whose names transpired in the exculpatory statement made by the person from whom the stolen property is actually recovered. This aspect of the case was ignored by the learned Judge altogether. 3. We accordingly make this Rule absolute, set aside the conviction and the sentences and direct that the Petitioners be discharged from their bail. R.C. Mitter, J. I agree.