JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner Gokul Saudha is convicted u/s 411 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months by Shri G.N. Singh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranpur by this judgment dated 9-4-1953. 2. The prosecution case is that in the house of Madan Mohan Ram P.W. 6 there were burglaries on two occasions, once on 7-10-1950 and on the second occasion, on the 17th of December, 1950. First Information Reports were lodged in respect of the two occurrences, once on 8-10-50. (Ex. 1) and again on 18-12-50 (Ex. 1) in the Police station at Ranpur. The accused persons were put under trial u/s 457/380 I.P.C. in respect of the occurrences described in Ex. 1 dated 8-10-50. The present Petitioner indeed was not an accused in the said criminal case which ended in an acquittal. So far as the second First Information Report is concerned, a final report was submitted mentioning that the facts stated appear to be true but there is no evidence for further proceeding. 3. The further part of the prosecution story is that in connection with another criminal case the house of the present Petitioner Gokul Sandha and his father Ragho Sandha was searched on 15-9-1951. It is to be mentioned that the father of the Petitioner has been acquitted while the Petitioner has been acquitted in G.R. Case No. 64 of 1950 and convicted and sentenced in G.R. Case No. 82 of 1950. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangi who searched the house of Raghu and Gokul found inside the looked up trunk belonging to the accused Gokul several articles and he made a list of them. The Sub-Inspector of Police of Ranpur having received the information and of the list found that the articles of which the Sub-Inspector of Tangi had made a list tallied with the articles which had been alleged to be the stolen articles from the house of Madan Mohan Ram and as such the present prosecution was started against both father and the son. The father having been acquitted, the son has come up with this revision. 4. The prosecution was lodged on the basis of nine articles (Exts. I-IX). It has been found by the trying Magistrate that Ex. The father having been acquitted, the son has come up with this revision. 4. The prosecution was lodged on the basis of nine articles (Exts. I-IX). It has been found by the trying Magistrate that Ex. I-VII having not been identified as stolen articles from Madan Mohan Ram, P.W. 6, he bases his conviction on the articles (Exts. VIII and IX) finding that the articles have been identified as stolen articles found in the trunk in possession of the present accused. At the time of admission, notice was taken out to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. We, therefore, allowed the learned Counsel to take us through the evidence of the case. 5. The point taken by Shri Misra in this revision is that there is no substantive evidence for the purpose of proving that the articles (Exts. VIII and IX) were found from the custody of the present accused as contemplated u/s 411 I.P.C. The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that of the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 8 which according to him is inadmissible. It transpires from the evidence of the Sub-Register (P.W. 3) who is the search witness that the choose of Raghu and Gokul consists of several come and besides father and the son there are many other members both male and female who live in that house. It is incumbent on the prosecution therefore, to prove that the stolen articles were recovered from the room which was exclusively in the occupation of the accused Gokul and particularly that the trunk from out of which the articles were seized belonged to Gokul. On r a careful examination of the evidence, we find that there is no evidence to that effect excepting the evidence of P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of Police. He admits in his examination that in fact he had never mentioned in the seizure list the contemporaneous document that the articles were recovered from the bed room of Gokul or from the trunk of Gokul. Indeed, he states in Court that the articles were seized from the trunk of Gokul and from his bed room but this he gathered only from the mother of Gokul who is not a witness examined in this case. He further states that he gathered the information from P.W. 4. On a comparison of the evidence of P.W. 4. Indeed, he states in Court that the articles were seized from the trunk of Gokul and from his bed room but this he gathered only from the mother of Gokul who is not a witness examined in this case. He further states that he gathered the information from P.W. 4. On a comparison of the evidence of P.W. 4. we find that he does not make statement to that effect. We are, therefore, definitely of the view that there is no evidence to prove that the trunk from out of which the articles in question (Exts. VIII and IX.) were recovered belonged to Gokul or that it was in the bed room of Gokul. Therefore, as it has not been established by the prosecution that the alleged stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the Petitioner as contemplated u/s 411 I.P.C., the conviction and sentence are be aside. The Petitioner is acquitted and the revision is allowed. The rule is made absolute. Fine if paid should be refunded. The rule for enhancement is discharged. Narasimham, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed