JUDGMENT Roxburgh, J. - In this case the accused Mordecai has been convicted for three offences under sec. 3 of Ordinance XXXIII of 1943; he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of one thousand rupees in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count, no separate sentence has been passed on the others. The prosecution case is that two Air Force men, Cpl. Towler, P. W. 5, and L. A. C. Pring, P. W. 6, arranged on the 18th of November, 1943, to steal and supply cases of provisions to the accused who is the son of the proprietor, and is the Manager, of the firm Daw Sen & Co., a firm of provision merchants. Mordecai took them to 4, Wood Street, showed a godown there and it was arranged that the goods should be left there. On the following afternoon, at 2-30 the two men drove up in a lorry and deposited the goods in the godown, obtaining the key from Suklal Missir, P. W. 7; according to his evidence they forced the goods on him and took the key away. The key was delivered to Mordecai at 6, Short Street at his house which is close by. Towler went the same evening and was paid by Mordecai Rs. 570 for the goods. Ganesh Missir, P. W. 8, brother of Suklal, on his return was told about the deposit of the cases and he gave information at the thana. The result was that a not very intelligent piece of work was done, namely that these goods were removed by the police from the godown and a watch was kept on the gate. The trap was left unset. Nevertheless the trap did operate in part. According to the soldiers, they became alarmed because there was scare in the camp about the missing rations and so they decided to try and get the articles back in the middle of the night. Unfortunately they came in a lorry for the waiting constable to see and accordingly they were caught. On being caught, the following morning they made statements and as a result Mordecai was arrested. His shop was searched and 6 tins of foodstuffs, bearing the "D arrow D" mark obliterated, were found in the shop, and 33 tins of sausages with marks similarly obliterated in the godown at Entally. On being caught, the following morning they made statements and as a result Mordecai was arrested. His shop was searched and 6 tins of foodstuffs, bearing the "D arrow D" mark obliterated, were found in the shop, and 33 tins of sausages with marks similarly obliterated in the godown at Entally. 2. We will first deal with the main charge relating to 35 cases which the soldiers say they stole and deposited in the godown for Mordecai. It is quite obvious that if the story is true, the accused cannot show that he had possession of these goods lawfully and that he must be convicted under the Ordinance. The salient feature of the case however is that it rests on the uncorroborated testimony of these two accomplices. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, while expressing himself as fully aware of the ordinary provisions of the law as regards dealing with accomplice evidence, conceded that in the special circumstances of this case he could rely on the evidence of the soldiers and he has accordingly convicted the accused Mordecai on this charge. The case is clearly one, at any rate, near the larder line. The point mentioned by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate as leading him to rely on this evidence undoubtedly has weight. The defence of the accused is a mere suggestion that the soldiers must have been instigated to implicate him falsely at the instance of some enemy, and Mr. Noad in argument suggests that it might have been done through the instrumentality of the Police. The learned Magistrate has stressed the demeanour of the witnesses in the box as to which, of course, he was in a better position to judge than we are, and we must accept that the demeanour was impressive, The two men were under trial by Court Martial during the hearing of the present case and were convicted. Pring knew Mordecai as having dealt with him in making purchases for the sergeant's mess. No suggestion of any cause of enmity between him and the accused could be alleged. The soldiers evidently gave out the name of the accused very shortly after they themselves have been caught out and arrested. As regards the actual story, it is, as Mr. Noad urges, improbable, but most of it is established beyond doubt. Mr. No suggestion of any cause of enmity between him and the accused could be alleged. The soldiers evidently gave out the name of the accused very shortly after they themselves have been caught out and arrested. As regards the actual story, it is, as Mr. Noad urges, improbable, but most of it is established beyond doubt. Mr. Noad suggested that the story that the soldiers went back to collect the goods because there was a scare cannot be true and it is more likely that they had arranged to dispose of the goods to somebody else, and had called in the middle of the night to take them away for this purpose. We do not think that this version sounds more probable than the one given by the soldiers. There is only one discrepancy that is at all material in their evidence, and any importance that there might have been in it has been largely removed by the learned Magistrate's comment that the error may be one of recording by him, Towler said that both he and Pring went and delivered the key to Mordecai and both went to receive the money. In cross-examination he corrected this and said that the alone took the key and collected the money. Pring's version was that he had gone back to his post after the cases were delivered at the godown and that he had not collected the money. Nevertheless without in any way minimising the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for deciding to rely on the evidence of these accomplices, the fact remains that the accused in the present case is to be found guilty, if at all, on the uncorroborated testimony of two men who are confessed thieves. In our opinion the reasons are not adequate for us not to depart from the ordinary and salutory rule of refusing to convict where there is no corroboration of the accomplice's story. We therefore think that the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt on this charge and be acquitted. 3. As regards the second and the third counts, the evidence is that the tins in question bear the D arrow D mark which shows that these goods were manufactured in Australia by the Defence Department and exported to India for the armed Services and that the goods with such labels are not sold to military personnel from canteens. 3. As regards the second and the third counts, the evidence is that the tins in question bear the D arrow D mark which shows that these goods were manufactured in Australia by the Defence Department and exported to India for the armed Services and that the goods with such labels are not sold to military personnel from canteens. This is the evidence of Sergeant-Major Allen, P. W. 10. In cross-examination he admitted that in one instance two cases of D arrow D marked cheese came from Australia by mistake for civilian consumption. As soon as it was discovered, the goods were withdrawn. In our opinion the evidence shows, even though these marks had apparently been soldered over, the goods are military stores as defined in Ordinance XXXIII, 1943. The accused's possession was not disputed. His only explanation is to say that he got them in the ordinary way through a broker. He made no attempt of any kind to show how these things were bought or to support his purchase by entries from his books. All that can be urged in his favour is that there had been a search some months before when some goods were taken away; he alleges that 6 tins which were found in the shop were left behind on that occasion. As regards the tins of sausages found in the godown, the accused had stated to the sub-inspector who made the search that he had ordered all goods suspected to be military goods to be given away to the poor and they were apparently found in a box, and it is suggested that this indicated that they were not kept for sale in his shop. 4. We do not consider that the accused has proved in the case of these goods that they came into his possession lawfully and we therefore upheld his conviction on these two counts, namely, second and third counts. We therefore alter the sentence to a fine of Rs. 100, in default three months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the counts, and we acquit the accused of the first count and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for one year. 5. He will pay the fine and will then be discharged from his bail bond. Ormond, J. 6. I agree. Regarding the first charge it is quite clear that 35 cases of Government stores were stolen. 5. He will pay the fine and will then be discharged from his bail bond. Ormond, J. 6. I agree. Regarding the first charge it is quite clear that 35 cases of Government stores were stolen. The two Airmen found to be concerted have already been convicted. The 35 cases of stores are no small quantity and if the accused Mordecai were to be linked with this transaction, it is obvious that no further question as to whether he knew these were of military stores or anything of that sort would arise. The whole question however is whether he has been proved to be in possession of these stores. The godown in which they were found is in no way connected with him. Neither is it on his premises, nor has any evidence been shown that the Durwan in charge of it had anything to do with him. There is no evidence apart from the evidence of the two airmen that he had any dealings with them before or after. Therefore the only evidence of his possession rests upon the statement of one airman that he saw him the day before, deposited the stores in the godown and that he saw him afterwards and gave him the key. The key has not been traced ; nor has the person been called whom the airman says he saw when he called at night at the accused's house and handed over the key. In the circumstances, though the matter is obviously a doubtful case, I agree with my learned brother that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt on his first charge. 7. In regard to the second charge I should only make one explanation. In the previous case I made some observations as to the point that the prosecution had not put anything before us showing that the mark "D arrow D" had any statutory effect as being a Government mark in this country. In the present case the absence of any explanation by the accused and the fact that the tins had already this mark obliterated and the circumstances generally of the case are sufficient, I think, to show both that these stores which formed the subject of the second charge were in fact Government stores ; and that the accused knew them to be so. I therefore agree also as to the second count and the conviction as to the second count. It is hardly necessary to add that even if the mark D arrow D has not been given statutory force, it will be open to the prosecution in any given case to show that the stores marked with the mark D arrow D were in fact military stores, and were known by the accused to be so.