Judgment Ahmed Ali Khan, J.-This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge at Kolar in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1967 on the file of his Court. In that case respondents 1 to 5 were respectively accused 1 to 5. They were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380. Alternative charges were also framed against them for dishonestly receiving stolen property (offence punishable under section 411, Indian Penal Code) and for being in possession of fire-arms without licence (offence punishable under section 3 read with section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act). They were also further charged for the offence punishable under section 5 , read with section 25 (1) (c) of the Anns Act, for failure to inform about the sale of fire-arms to the jurisdictional District Magistrate, and to the officer in charge of the jurisdictional Police Station. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused, and, therefore, acquitted them. The State has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal. Ramiah, who is Respondent No. 1 in this Court, was accused No. 1 in the Court below. He was working as a Reserve Police Constable at Kolar at the relevant time and he was residing in the Police Quarters at Kolar Town. Girigowda, accused No. 2, and Chickappaiah alias Munivenkatappa, accused No. 3, are residents of Pindiginagar in Srinivasapur Taluk, and are brothers. Venkatasubbaiah alias Munisubbaiah, accused No. 4 is a resident of Agara Village in Mulbagal Taluk. Dodda Chowdappa, accused No. 5 is a resident of Imarkunte village in Srinivasapur Taluk. The case for the prosecution against A-1 to A-5 was that between 5th August, 1965 and 18th December, 1965, they committed house breaking by night by breaking the eastern window of the District Reserve Police Store Room attached to the office of the Reserve Police Sub-Inspector, Kolar situated at Kolar Town, by tampering with one of the dealwood planks fastened to the ventilator of that room and by opening the window shutters of the said room and committed theft of 23 weapons marked M.Os. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24. It was further alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons were in unlawful possession of the said fire-arms without licence and they have also effected their sales unauthorisedly without observing the rules in that regard. According to the prosecution, the station house officers of the different Police Stations in Kolar District used to send the confiscated as well as deposited weapons to the District Police Office for being kept in safe custody. Out of these, some of the confiscated weapons were kept in a room (which was given Serial No. 1) in the old District Armed Reserve building, and both deposited weapons as well as confiscated weapons were kept in a room (which was given Serial No. 2) in the new building of the Reserve Sub-Inspector's Office, which is at a distance of about twenty feet from the old District Armed Reserve building. It was said that M.Os. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24 had been sent by different Police Stations to the District Police Office, which will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘D.P.O.‘for safe custody. After receipt of the weapons in the District Police Office acknowledgments were sent in Form No. 7 from the District Police Office to the different Police Stations from which these weapons had been received, after making entries in the Gun Deposit Register. The Manager of the District Police Office sent these guns, viz., M.Os. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24, as and when they were received, to the Stores Clerk P.W. 20 Narayana Sharma, for safe custody, and they had been kept in the room, Serial No. 2. It was the prosecution case that Room No. 2 has two windows, one on the eastern side and the other on the northern side. Each window has four shutters fixed from inside the room and iron rods are fixed vertically. Each shutter has two bolts, one at the top and the other at the bottom. There is a ventialtor at the top fixed with ordinary plain glass having two iron rods fixed horizontally. Throughout day and night one head constable (who is called the guard officer) and 4 police constables keep watch over the rooms in which the weapons were kept as well as over the office of the Reserve Police Sub-Inspector. There is a ventialtor at the top fixed with ordinary plain glass having two iron rods fixed horizontally. Throughout day and night one head constable (who is called the guard officer) and 4 police constables keep watch over the rooms in which the weapons were kept as well as over the office of the Reserve Police Sub-Inspector. It is in the prosecution evidence that the rooms in which the weapons were deposited were to be opened by the Stores Clerk only in the presence of the Sentry who was on duty at that time, and whenever the said rooms were opened by the Stores Clerk an entry to that effect should be made in the Sentry Relief Book noting down the date and the time when they were opened. So also while closing and resealing the said rooms an entry mentioning the date and the time of the closure and resealing should be made in the Sentry Relief Book. It was further the case of the prosecution that on 1st July, 1965, when the Stores Clerk P.W. 20 Narayana Sharma and his assistant Chandrasekhariah opened Room No. 2 in which the confiscated and deposited weapons were kept, in the presence of the Sentry, they found the outside glass of the ventilator of the eastern window broken. Thereupon P.W. 20 made an oral report to P.W. 47 Susainathan who was at that time the Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police and also to the Manager of District Police Office P.W. 48 Chandrasekhar. As per the instructions of the Reserve Sub-Inspector, Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 got fixed dealwood planks to the ventilatior of the eastern window and an entry regarding the breakage of the glass as well as the fixing of the dealwood plank to the ventilator to the eastern window of Room No. 2 was made by him in the Sentry Relief Book Exhibit P-12 as per Exhibit P-12 (a). It is in the evidence of the prosecution that deal-wood planks were got fixed to the ventilator through Pandurangan P.W. 45. It was alleged that as the inspection of the weapons as well as the office was going to be made by the Inspector-General of Police, physical check up was made of the weapons on 5th August, 1965, and at that time M.Os. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24 along with the remaining weapons were found intact in Room No. 2. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24 along with the remaining weapons were found intact in Room No. 2. But on 18th December, 1965, at about 1-45 p.m. when Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 and his assistant Chandrasekhariah opened Room No. 2 in the presence of the sentry on duty, they found one of the deal-wood planks (M.O. 8) that had been fixed to the ventilator of the eastern window of Room No. 2 having been loosened and it was hanging on the nails. The weapons which were kept near the eastern window were found disturbed and some gaps here and there were noticed. Suspecting that someone might have tampered with the ventilator and removed some of the weapons, Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 intimated the same on phone to P.W. 3 Deviah who was in charge Superintendent of Police. P.W. 20 also intimated the same to the Manager Chandrasekhar P.W. 48. Deviah P.W. 3 instructed Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 on phone to check up the stock of the weapons in the presence of the manager and to submit a detail report to him. “Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20 accordingly checked up the stock of the weapons with reference to the concerned register and found that the guns M.Os. I to 7 and 9 to 24 were missing from Room No. 2. Thereupon he prepared the report Exhibit P-1 as well as the list Exhibit P-1 (b) of the weapons which were found missing and submitted it to Deviah P.W. 3 at his residence at about 8 p.m. Deviah P. W. 3 made the endorsement as per Exhibit P-1 (a) and gave the report and list to Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 with instructions to deliver it to P.W. 49 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kolar Town Police Station. Ramegowda P.W. 49 after receipt of the report recorded the additional statement of Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 as per Exhibit P-1 (c) and registered a case in Crime No. 503 of 1965. Thereafter Ramegowda P.W. 49 prepared the F.I.R. Exhibit P-48 and despatched the same along with the report Exhibit P-1 and the list Exhibit P-1 (b) to the Magistrate at Kolar. On the next day viz. on 19th December, 1965, P.W. 49 conducted spot mahazar and prepared Exhibit P-13 and seized the deal-wood plank M.O. 8. Thereafter Ramegowda P.W. 49 prepared the F.I.R. Exhibit P-48 and despatched the same along with the report Exhibit P-1 and the list Exhibit P-1 (b) to the Magistrate at Kolar. On the next day viz. on 19th December, 1965, P.W. 49 conducted spot mahazar and prepared Exhibit P-13 and seized the deal-wood plank M.O. 8. The same day P.W. 49 made a search of the workshop of one Subramanyam and seized 2 S.B.M.L. guns, 9 barrels of both S.B.M.L. and S.B.B.L. guns, and 2 butts, from the workshop of the said Subramanyam, under a mahazar. He then searched the house of Pandurangan P.W. 45, the Armourer in the D.A.R. Police, Kolar and seized from his house one S.B.M.L. gun and two barrels and two pipes. The seized properties were subjected to property Form Nos. 276 of 1965 and 277 of 1965. Then on 21st December, 1965 P.W. 49 Ramegowda with his staff went to Dogaranayakanahalli and there in the presence of Panchas searched the workshop of one Veerabhadrachari, but did not find any weapons. From there P.W. 49 and his staff went to Royalpad and then to Sunkal village. At Sunkal village P.W. 49 with the assistance of the local police sarched the house of one Abdul Ahmed Khan and seized four S.B.M.L. guns, one S.B.M.L. gun butt and six barrels. On 24th December, 1965 P.W. 49 Ramegowda received two D.B.M.L. guns, one D.B.M.L. gun, and 10 S.B.M.L. guns which had been seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Robertsonpet, from the armoury shop of one V.J. Alfred at K.G.F. Confidential enquiries made by P.W. 49 disclosed that A-1 Ramiah was moving about in Kodichervu, Jaderi, Gummareddipura, Gundamnatha, Chaldiganahalli and Srinivasapur and was offering guns for sale. On the basis of suspicion he sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Kolar, on 26th December, 1965, requesting him to keep A-1 Ramiah under suspension. Accordingly he was kept under suspension, and on the same day i.e., on 26th December, 1965, at about 10-30 a.m. A-1 was arrested. After his arrest, on the information furnished by A-1 to P.W. 49 Ramegowda as per Exhibits P-49 to P-60, P.W. 49 recovered weapons from the possession of the persons to whom be had sold them or with whom they had been kept by him. After his arrest, on the information furnished by A-1 to P.W. 49 Ramegowda as per Exhibits P-49 to P-60, P.W. 49 recovered weapons from the possession of the persons to whom be had sold them or with whom they had been kept by him. On 27th December, 1965, P.W. 49 arrested A-2 and on the basis of the information furnished by him as per Exhibits P-61 and P-62, M.Os. 1 and 3 were recovered on 28th December, 1965 and 29th December, 1965. A-3 and A-4 were arrested on 29th December, 1965, and on the information furnished by A-3 as per Exhibit P-63, M.Os. Nos. 4 and 22 were recovered on 29th December, 1965. On the information furnished by A-4 as per Exhibit P-64, M.Os. Nos. 17, 10,14 and 18 were recovered on the same day, i.e., on 29th December, 1965. Accused No. 5 was arrested on 30th December, 1965, and on the basis of the information furnished by him as per Exhibit P-65 and P-66, M.O. No. 21 was recovered on 1st January, 1966 and M.O. No. 7 was recovered on 31st December, 1965. After completion of the investigation all the five accused were charge-sheeted before the First Class Magistrate, Kolar, who committed them for trial before the Sessions Court. The plea taken by the accused persons was denial in toto of all the allegations made against them. They also denied that they had furnished any information as alleged by the prosecution. They further denied the recoveries which are alleged to have been made on the basis of the information furnished by them. They also denied that they had committed theft of the guns. According to them, there was in fact no theft of the guns at all and the guns had been misappropriated by the Stores clerk Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 who was in exclusive charge of the confiscated and deposited weapons which had been kept in Room No. 2. The learned Sessions Judge on the evidence adduced in the case held that the offences charged were not established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and, on the basis of that finding, he acquitted them of all the offences with which they had been charged. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial Judge has erred in not making a proper approach to the facts of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial Judge has erred in not making a proper approach to the facts of the case. He submitted that the conclusion reached by him is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. His grievance was that the learned trial Judge has discarded the evidence regarding the factum of theft as well as the evidence relating to recovery and identification of the recovered properties, on imaginary grounds. He contended that there was no reason to discard the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the other police officers viz., P.W. 48, P.W. 3 and P.W. 45. As mentioned above, this is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Before the Court of appeal could interfere with such an order one should bear in mind the limitations attached to an appeal against an acquittal. It is now well settled that in an appeal against an order of acquittal the power of this Court to review the evidence afresh is as extensive as its power in an appeal against conviction. It is equally well settled that if two reconcilable views on the evidence adduced are possible, the view that had commended itself to the trial Court should be accepted, as the trial Court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the box. Further, there is the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person, and that presumption is certainly not weakened by the order of acquittal. But, if the trial Court has misdirected itself either on a question of law or in appreciating the evidence before it and thus arrived at conclusions which are wholly unreasonable and unsupportable, then it is the duty of this Court to interfere with the verdict in appeal. Now, we shall proceed to consider the evidence adduced in thecase bearing in mind these well settled principles relating to acquittal. Before we do so, it must be mentioned here that the learned Public Prosecutor concentrated his arguments in this appeal against accused No. 1 and with regard to the recovery and indentification of M.Os, Nos. 2,6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 23 and 24, only which are alleged to have been recovered at the instance of A-1. Before we do so, it must be mentioned here that the learned Public Prosecutor concentrated his arguments in this appeal against accused No. 1 and with regard to the recovery and indentification of M.Os, Nos. 2,6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 23 and 24, only which are alleged to have been recovered at the instance of A-1. This was done for the obvious reason that the evidence relating to the identification of the other articles, which are alleged to have been recovered at the instance of A-1 and also the other accused persons, cannot be said to be conclusive. It must also be stated here that the learned Public Prosecutor did not press his case seriously, and we think rightly, against Accused Nos. 2 to 5. In this situation, the only point for consideration in this case is whether the offences charged are brought home to Accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt, and it is unnecessary to consider and discuss the evidence with regard to the other accused persons. It is also unnecessary to consider the evidence relating to A-1 with regard to the other articles, except Articles M.Os. 2,6,9,12,13,15,23 and 24, on which stress has been laid on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has made strong observations while arriving at the conclusion reached by him by stating that the case had been concocted and fabricated by the prosecution. But we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in making those observations in his judgment against the prosecution. There is nothing to doubt the bona fides of the prosecution. The only point for consideration in this case was whether there is sufficient legal evidence in the case to justify a conviction against the accused persons. But in any event the case of the prosecution cannot be characterised as being a fabricated and concocted one. With regard to the factum of theft of the guns the learned Sessions Judge has given several reasons for arriving at his conclusion. According to him, the story of the prosecution that the outer glass of the ventilator was found broken on 1st July, 1965, and that a deal-wood plank was got fixed in its place, is not established by the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the story of the prosecution that the outer glass of the ventilator was found broken on 1st July, 1965, and that a deal-wood plank was got fixed in its place, is not established by the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He was further of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution relating to the commission of theft between 5th August, 1965, and 18th December, 1965, is not free from suspicion. Another reason given by him for arriving at that conclusion was that the theft did not take place as alleged by the prosecution and it was not safe to rely on the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the fact that Exhibit P-1 had been lodged on 18th December, 1965 between 8 and 9 p.m., in the night at the Police Station House, Kolar Town. He was also of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution relating to recovery of articles and identification of the same was not reliable and it was not safe to act upon it. We shall now proceed to consider whether the conclusion arrived at by the trial judge with regard to the factum of theft is based on improper appreciation of evidence. The first circumstance which was considered in relation to the factum of theft was the breakage of the outer glass of the eastern ventilator of room No. 2. Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, Susainathan, P.W. 47, Pandurangan P.W. 45, Chandrasekhar P.W. 48 have given evidence in that connection. Their evidence shows that on 1st July, 1965, when Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, opened room No. 2 attached to the office of the R.S.I., the breakage of the outer glass of the ventilator of the eastern window was noticed and on the instructions of the R.S.I., Susainathan, P.W. 47, Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, got fixed six deal-wood planks from inside to the ventilator. An entry to that effect was made in the sentry relief book Exhibit P-12. It appears from the entries in Exhibit P-12 viz., Exhibit P-12 (a) and Exhibit P-12 (b) that on 1st July, 1965 room No. 2 was opened twice, once at 11-30 A.m. and again at 3-30 p.m. on that day. Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, has admitted that the said entries are made and signed by him. It appears from the entries in Exhibit P-12 viz., Exhibit P-12 (a) and Exhibit P-12 (b) that on 1st July, 1965 room No. 2 was opened twice, once at 11-30 A.m. and again at 3-30 p.m. on that day. Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, has admitted that the said entries are made and signed by him. It is also in the evidence of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, that if after going into the said room and before resealing it, anything untoward or anything missing is noticed, the same should “necessarily and invariably” be written in the sentry relief book. Susaina than P.W. 47 has also given evidence that if after opening the armoury and before i t is closed anything untoward like the breakage of the glass of the ventilator had been noticed, the same should have been noted down in the sentry relief book before an entry relating to the closure and resealing of the store room is made. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that if the outer glass of the ventilator had been broken, it would not have escaped the attention of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, when the room was opened on 1st July, 1965, for the first time at 11-30 a.m. But there is no mention of either the breakage of the glass or the fixing of the deal-wood plank to the ventilator in that entry. It was submitted that the absence of such an entry, creates suspicion against the prosecution. Mr. Ramachandra Rao argued that room No. 2 was first opened at 11-30 a.m. and it was closed at 12-30 p.m. on 1st July, 1965. Again it was opened at 3-30 p.m. on that day. Though there is an entry to the effect that the room was closed, the time is not mentioned therein. The entries with regard to the breakage of the glass and the fixing of the deal-wood plank are made separately on the border. It is clearly apparent that they have been made after the entries relating to the opening and closing of room No. 2 were entered in the register for the second time. Moreover, the entry with regard to the fixing of deal-wood plank is made in different ink. He maintained that this circumstance also makes the prosecution case doubtful. We have seen the entries Exhibits P-12 and P-12 (a) carefully. Moreover, the entry with regard to the fixing of deal-wood plank is made in different ink. He maintained that this circumstance also makes the prosecution case doubtful. We have seen the entries Exhibits P-12 and P-12 (a) carefully. It appears to us that the entry with regard to deal-wood plank is made in different ink. Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 also has admitted that it is in different ink. The entries with regard to breakage of the glass and fixing of deal-wood plank have been made on the margin separately and not within the entries of opening and closing of the room No; 2 on 1st July, 1965, which furnishes a reasonable basis for an inference that they were written after the entries of opening and closure of room No. 2 at 3-30 p.m. were made in the Register. The trial judge was of the view that the evidence of the prosecution with regard to breakage of window cannot be relied upon. In the concluding portion of para. 23 of his judgment he has stated: — “On a careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the case in the light of the admissions and the broad probabilities of the case, I have, absolutely no hesitation in coming to the clear conclusion that the story concerning the breakage of the glass and the fixing up of the deal-wood planks to the ventilator is false and the same is concocted in order to probablise and strengthen the story of theft, because in the absence of such story, the prosecution case regarding burglary and theft becomes unacceptable”. Although his observations as already observed by us are couched in strong language we are of the opinion that there is nothing in the record to doubt the bona fides of the prosecution; nevertheless in view of the circumstances referred to above, it cannot be said that the conclusion reached by the trial judge that the, evidence with regard to breakage of the window and fixing of deal-wood plank is’ not free from discrepancies, does not find support in the material on record. But the learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is clear from the First Information Report Exhibit P-1 that the theft was noticed in room No. 2 on 18th December 1965, and there is no reason for not believing Exhibit P-1. But the learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is clear from the First Information Report Exhibit P-1 that the theft was noticed in room No. 2 on 18th December 1965, and there is no reason for not believing Exhibit P-1. He stressed that if Exhibit P-1 is believed and accepted, then the incident relating to the breakage of glass and fixing of deal-wood plank cannot have any bearing on the factum of theft. He further argued that in his additional statement recorded by the Sub-Inspector, Ramegowda, P.W. 49, which is marked as Exhibit P-1 (c), Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20 has stated that the glass of the ventilator was found broken somewhere in the month of August, 1965 and since it could not be got repaired, he got the dealwood planks fixed from inside through D.A.R.H.C.No.1 V.P. Pandurangan P.W. 45. He contended that if the entry in Exhibit P-12 (a) had been made subsequently, it could have easily been made to support the statement of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, that the glass was broken some time in the month of August, 1965. According to him, this circumstance itself shows that the entry Exhibit P-12 (a) had not been made subsequently. As already observed by us, both the entries with regard to the breakage of the glass and fixing of deal-wood planks are made not within the entries of opening and closure of Room No. 2 i.e., the second time, but on the margin of the register. Further, the entry relating to deal-wood plank is made in different ink. This fact has been admitted by Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20 also in his deposition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the additional statement of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20 cannot be of much assistance to the prosecution. It is true that this circumstance by itself cannot have much materiality on the question of factum of theft. But as will be observed presently, considering all the circumstances proved in the case and their cumulative effect, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the circumstance of breakage of glass should be discarded or should not be kept in view while evaluating the evidence with regard to the factum of theft in this case. The material point for consideration in this case is whether theft is established by the prosecution. The material point for consideration in this case is whether theft is established by the prosecution. It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is in the evidence of the prosecution that the theft in room No. 2 was noticed in 18th December, 1965 when it was opened by Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20. After noticing the same, Exhibit P-1 was lodged by him before the Sub-Inspector the same night at about 9 p.m. He submitted that Exhibit P-1 is an important document and there are no reasons for not accepting the same. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that on the evidence of the prosecution it cannot be concluded that Exhibit P-1 was lodged before the Sub-Inspector in the manner and as alleged by the prosecution. At any rate, according to him, the evidence of the prosecution in that regard is not free from suspicion. It is in the evidence of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, when he opened room No. 2 on 18th December, 1965 at 1-45 p.m., he noticed the theft of the weapons in that room. Soon after noticing the same he intimated to Devaiah, P.W.3, about it. Daviah instructed him to check up the stock with reference to C.D.R., and to submit a detail report. He found that M.Os. Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 24 were missing from room No. 2. He submitted a report Exhibit P-1 to that effect to Devaiah, P.W. 3, along with the list Exhibit P-1 (b), mentioning therein the weapons that were found missing from room No. 2. It is in the evidence of Devaiah, P.W. 3, that on 18th December, 1965 at about 8 p.m. when he was in his house, Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, submitted to him the report Exhibit P-1. On receipt of the same, he made an endorsement as per Exhibit P-1 (a) and sent the same along with the enclosure Exhibit P-1 ( b) to the Sub-Inspector, Ramegowda, P.W. 49, for investigation and report. Ramegowda, P.W. 49, has given evidence that on 18th December, 1965 at about 9 p.m. he received the report Exhibit P-1 along with its annexures. He has stated that Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, had brought and delivered it to him. Ramegowda, P.W. 49, has given evidence that on 18th December, 1965 at about 9 p.m. he received the report Exhibit P-1 along with its annexures. He has stated that Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, had brought and delivered it to him. On receipt of the same he made an endorsement noting down the time of its receipt and thereafter recorded the additional statement of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20 as per Exhibit P-1 (c). The contention that had been raised on behalf of the respondents is that the report Exhibit P-1 was not lodged on 18th December, 1965 at 9 p.m., before the Sub-Inspector Ramegowda, P.W. 49, but it has been brought into existence subsequently. In his cross-examination, Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 has deposed: “I got the report Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-1 (b) typed in the District Police Officer, Kolar. After getting Exhibit P-1 and P-1 (b) typed in the office, I signed them and personally delivered them to P.W. 3 Deviah, at 8 p.m. at his residence situate at New Extension, Kolar Town. At 7-30 p.m. I left the office with Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-1 (6) and went direct to the house of P.W. 3. P.W. 3, Deviah took about an hour to go through the contents of Exhibit P-1 and P-1 (b). During that period I was in his house, with him. After making an endorsement on the report Exhibit P-1, P.W. 3 Devaiah delivered Exhibit P-1 ( b) and P-1 to me which I carried and delivered to the Sub-Inspector, Kolar Town Police at 9 p.m. The Sub-Inspector after going through the contents of Exhibit P-1 and P-1 (b), recorded my further statement……………… After my further statement was recorded I went through it and satisfied myself that it was correct, I signed my further statement. About an hour's time was taken for recording my further statement. After that I returned to my house and remained in my house throughout that night…. Exhibit D-4 (a) (3) is an entry which was made on 18th December, 1965. It is as follows: “Opened the seal of armoury at 7-45 p.m. and closed at 8-45 p.m.” It also bears the signature of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20. After that I returned to my house and remained in my house throughout that night…. Exhibit D-4 (a) (3) is an entry which was made on 18th December, 1965. It is as follows: “Opened the seal of armoury at 7-45 p.m. and closed at 8-45 p.m.” It also bears the signature of Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20. From the entry Exhibit D-4 (a) (3) it can be reasonably inferred that Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, must have been in room No. 2 during that time i.e., from 7-45 p.m. to 8-45 p.m. and this entry casts suspicion in the evidence of the prosecution that Exhibit P-1 along with its annexures was delivered to Deviah, P.W. 3, in his house at 8 p.m. and thereafter to Ramegowda, P.W. 49, at 9 p.m. It was argued on behalf of the State that it is probable that Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20, must have returned to room No. 2 in between and made the endorsement relating to the closure of the room, as per Exhibit D-4 (a) (3). But the obstacle in the way of the prosecution is that there is no material on record to show that Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 had returned to Room No. 2 in between 7-45 p.m., and 8-45 p.m., on 18th December, 1965 and after making the endorsement as per Exhibit D-4 (a) (3) he went back again. Neither Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 states so. On the other hand, it is clear from the testimony of Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 that all along till his additional statement Exhibit P-1 (c) was recorded by Ramegowda P.W. 49, he was with them, i.e., with P.W. 3 and P.W. 49. It is also clear from his testimony that thereafter he went to his house and remained in his house that night. It was then argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that it appears from the record that Exhibit P-1 had reached the Magistrate's Court on 19th December, 1965. Relying on this, his contention was that it cannot be doubted that Exhibit P-1 was lodged on the night of 18th December, 1965, as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. We have looked into the record. It is regrettable that the Magistrate has not mentioned the time of the receipt of the First Information Report in his endorsement, which he ought to have done. We have looked into the record. It is regrettable that the Magistrate has not mentioned the time of the receipt of the First Information Report in his endorsement, which he ought to have done. But the fact remains that the endorsement made by the Magistrate does not mention the time at which Exhibit P-1 was received by him. The learned Public Prosecutor was unable to point out to us either any material on record to show at what time Exhibit P-1 was despatched to the Magistrate concerned. It is not disputed before us that the Magistrate's Court-is situated in Kolar Town itself. In these circumstances, as argued on behalf of the respondents, the possibility of Exhibit P-1 coming into existence subsequently cannot be ruled out. The trial judge found himself difficult to accept the evidence of the prosecution in that regard and was of the opinion that it cannot be conclusively concluded on the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that Exhibit P-1 was lodged on 18th December, 1965 at 9 p.m. We are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the trial judge does not find support in the material on record. If two views are possible on the material on record, the one which commended to the trial Court should be accepted by this Court even though this Court may be inclined to accept the other view. On a careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the case, we do not find ourselves safe to accept the evidence of the prosecution and to disagree with the view taken by the Court below with regard to the factum of theft. We are of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution in that regard is not free from discrepancies and this conclusion of ours is further strengthened when we consider the evidence with regard to Exhibit P-13 the spot Mahazar. It is in the evidence of Ramegowda, P.W. 49 the Investigating Officer, that on 19th December, 1965 at 10 a.m. he, accompanied by the panchas, the Circle inspector, one head constable, two constables and Narayana Sharma P.W. 20 went to the office of R.S.I.; that P.W. 20 Narayana Sharma opened room No. 2 and they found that one of the deal-wood planks fixed to the ventilator was hanging. There were guns inside room No. 2. There were guns inside room No. 2. It was further noticed that six deal-wood planks had been fixed to the ventilator from inside the room. Ramegowda, P.W. 49, seized the deal-wood planks (M.O. No. 8) and a spot Mahazar as per Exhibit P-13 was drawn up. Narayana Sharma, P.W. 20 has also deposed substantially to the same effect. It was argued by Mr. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, that if room No. 2 was opened at 10 a.m.,on 19th December, 1965 and, after inspection of the said room, the spot Mahazar as per Exhibit P-13 was drawn up then the entry relating to the opening of the room on 19thDecember 1965, should have been found in the sentry relief book, but there is no such entry in the register According to him, this circumstance creates suspicion in the prosecution case. It was argued on behalf of the State that as Room No. 2 was opened during the course of the investigation, it was not necessary to make any entry with regard to the opening and closure of the room in the sentry relief book. There is no material on record to indicate that if the room was opened or closed for the purpose of investigation no entry should be made in the register concerned. Furthermore Exhibit D-4 (a) (4) clearly shows that the room was opened on 19th December, 1965 at 1-15 p.m. If according to the prosecution it was not necessary to make any entry with regard to the opening and closure in the sentry relief book if the room is opened for the purpose investigation, then Why the entry Exhibit D-4 ( a) (4) was made in the sentry relief book? No satisfactory explanation is given for making the entry as per Exhibit D-4 ( a) (4) in that book. Moreover no entry is to be found with regard to the closure of the room in the sentry relief book after the room was opened as per Exhibit D-4 (a) (4). Farther, it is in the evidence of the Panch Witness Giddappa P.W 44 that about three hours’ time was taken for completing the Mahazar. Moreover no entry is to be found with regard to the closure of the room in the sentry relief book after the room was opened as per Exhibit D-4 (a) (4). Farther, it is in the evidence of the Panch Witness Giddappa P.W 44 that about three hours’ time was taken for completing the Mahazar. He has further deposed that it was completed at about 3 p.m. If that be so, it does not stand to reason how the entry Exhibit D-4 (a) ( 4) was made with regard to the opening of the room at 1-15 p.m. on that day. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution in that connection and there is no material on record to show why and for what purpose the room was opened at 1-15 p.m. on 19th December, 1965. The evidence of the prosecution suffers from one more infirmity in this regard. It does not show as to when the spot Mahazar Exhibit P-13 was prepared and how many guns were found in Room No. 2. It was argued on behalf of the State that it was not necessary to mention the same. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The mam purport and intent of the spot Mahazar is to reduce to writing the conditions that were prevalent at the spot when the Mahazar was prepared Giddappa, P.W. 44, has admitted during the course of his cross-examination on behalf of the accused Nos 2 and 3, that at the time of preparation of Exhibit P-13 the guns were counted by them. This is what he had stated: “When we all went inside the store room, it was 10 a.m. The writing of the. Mahazar was commenced at 11 a.m. During that one hour, the guns were counted. The number of guns which were inside the room were noted in the Mahazar Exhibit P-13. I did not count the guns. But the Police themselves counted the guns. The guns were counted”. It is clear from his statement that the Panch witness is definite on the point that the guns were counted when the spot Mahazar Exhibit P-13 was prepared. But it the spot Mahazar Exhibit P-13, no mention has been made as to how many guns were found in room No. 2. The guns were counted”. It is clear from his statement that the Panch witness is definite on the point that the guns were counted when the spot Mahazar Exhibit P-13 was prepared. But it the spot Mahazar Exhibit P-13, no mention has been made as to how many guns were found in room No. 2. The trial Judge was of the opinion that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence relating to the drawing up of the spot Mahazar as alleged by the prosecution We think that the trial judge was right in arriving at that conclusion. The evidence of the prosecution is not only full of discrepancies but also is inconsistent in that regard, which creates suspicion in the prosecution case. After careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution we are of the opinion that the cumulative effect of the circumstances relating to the breakage of glass, lodging of the complaint Exhibit P-1 and the drawing up of the spot Mahazar Exhibit P.-13, as observed above, makes it highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the prosecution. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the factum of theft is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no direct evidence in this case. Therefore, the evidence relating to the recovery of the articles and its identification assumes much significance. As mentioned earlier, the learned Public Prosecutor has confined his arguments only to the recovery of 8 articles, M.Os. Nos. 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 23 and 24. It was argued on behalf of the State that it is clearly established by the prosecution evidence that these articles were recovered on the basis of the information furnished by accused No. 1 and at his instance from the possession of the persons to whom they were given. To repeat we may mention here that since the arguments were confined only to the above referred to articles, it is not necessary for us to consider or discuss the evidence relating to other articles that are alleged to have been recovered in this case. The information furnished by the accused No. 1 with regard to these articles is found in Exhibit P-55, P-49, P-56, P-50, P-58, P-49, P-52 and Exhibit P-59. The article M.O.No..2 was alleged to have been recovered on 27th December, 1965 through Panchanama Exhibit P-3. The information furnished by the accused No. 1 with regard to these articles is found in Exhibit P-55, P-49, P-56, P-50, P-58, P-49, P-52 and Exhibit P-59. The article M.O.No..2 was alleged to have been recovered on 27th December, 1965 through Panchanama Exhibit P-3. Thimmappa Reddy, P.W. 6 is the Panch of that Panchanama. M.O. No. 2 was alleged to have been recovered from one Narappa since deceased. It is said that Accused 1 led Ramegowda, P.W. 49, and the panchas to the house of Narappa (since deceased), who produced M.O. No. 2 and the same was seized under the Panchanama Exhibit P-3. M.Os. Nos. 6 and 15 were seized under panchanama Exhibit P-36 Muniswamappa, P.W. 41, is the Panch of the Panchanama. He has given evidence that about 2 years 1 month prior to his examination in the Court, A-1 Ramaiah the Sub-Inspectors of Kolar Town Police Station and Srinivaspur Police Station and 4 or 5 police constables came to his village Laxmisagar; that the police sent for him and he went to the Panchayathi hall of his village; that on the instructions of the police, Muniswamappa, P.W. 41, got Venkateshappa, P.W. 33. The subinspector asked Venkateshappa, P.W. 33, as to whether accused No. 1 had given him two guns, to which he gave an answer in the affirmative and told him that he had kept those two guns in his house. The witness further deposed that Venkateshappa, P.W. 33, brought two guns from his house and produced them before the Sub-Inspector Ramegowda, P.W. 49 and the panchayatdars. The two guns (M.Os. Nos. 6 and 15) were seized under panchanama Exhibit P-36. Ramegowda P.W. 49, has also deposed to the same effect. M.O.No. 12 is alleged to have been recovered through panchanama Exhibit P-44 from Ramiah, P.W. 39. Muniswamappa, P.W. 41, is the Panch Witness of Exhibit P-44. Ramaiah P.W. 39 is a resident of Laxmisagar who has deposed that about more than 2 years prior to his deposition in the trial Court, accused 1 came with a gun and he wanted to keep it in his (P.W. 39) house. Out of fear Ramiah P.W. 39 told accused 1 not to keep it in his house. But the accused 1 told Ramiah, P.W. 39, that there was no need to have any fear and that he would take the gun either in the evening or in the next day. Out of fear Ramiah P.W. 39 told accused 1 not to keep it in his house. But the accused 1 told Ramiah, P.W. 39, that there was no need to have any fear and that he would take the gun either in the evening or in the next day. After keeping the gun in his house, accused 1 went away. He has also deposed that about 8 or 10days later, accused 1, the Sub-Inspector and the police came to his house. Accused 1 asked’ Ramiah, P.W. 39, to bring the gun which he had kept in his house, whereupon he told him that he himself might take it. Accordingly accused 1 himself took the gun from his house and went along with the Sub-Inspector and 2 or 3 constables to the panchayathi hall, and a Mahazar Exhibit P-44 was drawn up to which he has attested. The evidence of Muniswamappa, P.W. 41, and Ramegowda P.W. 49, is also substantially to the same effect. Next we come to M.O. No. 13. The prosecution case is that it was recovered from Kalappa, P.W. 30, through panchanama Exhibit P-34, on 31st December, 1965. The Panch Witness is Abdul Karim P.W. 31. Kalappa, P.W. 30 his turned hostile. But it was argued on behalf of the State that in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he produced M.O. No. 13 before the police. Exhibit P-7 is the Panchanama of the recovery of article M.O. No. 23. P.W. 15, Venkataswamy is its Panch. It was stated that it was recovered from Subbanna P.W. 14 on 29th December, 1965. The Panch Witness Venkataswamy P.W. 15 and the Investigating Officer Ramegowda P.W. 49 have deposed that M.O. No. 23 was recovered from Subbanna P.W. 14. M.O.No. 24 is alleged to have been recovered from Chowdappa P.W. 29 on 31st December, 1965, through the Panchanama Exhibit P-33. Abdul Karim P.W. 31 is the Panch Witness. ‘ None of the Panch Witnesses have identified the articles which are alleged to have been recovered with reference to any particular mark or number on them, nor the persons from whom they are alleged to have been recovered have identified the articles in that manner. Much stress was laid on behalf of the State that the Investigating Officer Ramegowda P.W. 49 has identified the guns. Much stress was laid on behalf of the State that the Investigating Officer Ramegowda P.W. 49 has identified the guns. It was urged that it is in the evidence that the Investigating Officer Ramegowda P.W. 49 picked up these weapons from among the other weapons in the trial Court. It is seen from the weapons which are before this Court that they carry big size serial numbers on the butt-end in white paint and those numbers are quite prominent. In these circumstances, the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 49 cannot have much materiality with regard to the identification of the weapons for the reason that those weapons bore on them the numbers on the butt-end which were plainly visible to a naked eye. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is nothing in the record to show that the learned Sessions Judge has made a note that while identifying the weapons in the Court, P.W. 49 had seen the serial numbers. But there is also no note of the Sessions Judge to the effect that the serial numbers on the butt-end of the weapons were hidden when the identification was made by P.W. 49. Therefore, we are not in a position to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor on that point. There is yet another reason for holding that much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence relating to the identification of the articles. It is said that after the seizure of the weapons through the concerned Mahazars, chits containing the signature of the panchas had been pasted on the weapons so seized. That being so, the panches should have been made to identify the weapons with reference to their signatures on those chits. The learned Public Prosecutor was not able to tell us why the panchas were not made to identify the articles recovered, with reference to their signatures contained in the chits pasted on them. Moreover, the stand taken on behalf of the respondents in this case is that on the circumstances appearing in the evidence, the possibility of planting the weapons that had been recovered from Subramanyam and Pandurangan P.W. 45 or some other weapons cannot be ruled out.. It was argued that the property from Exhibit D-22 relating to Nos. 37994 to 37996 are found torn out from the register. It was argued that the property from Exhibit D-22 relating to Nos. 37994 to 37996 are found torn out from the register. Those pages relate to the seizure of the weapons from 17th December, 1965 to 20th December, 1965. It was, however, contended on behalf of the State that the numbers and the identification marks of the missing weapons are mentioned in the list Exhibit P-1 (b). The endorsement of the Magistrate on Exhibit P-1 shows that the F.I.R. was received by him on 19th December, 1965. Therefore the torn pages as per Exhibit D-22 cannot have much relevancy in this case. As observed earlier, there is nothing in the record to show at what time on 19th December, 1965, Exhibit P-1 reached the Magistrate. Nor there is anything in the record to show that at what time it had been despatched to the Magistrate's Court. The weapons were seized from the shop of Subramanyam and also from the shop of Pandurangan P.W. 45 on 19th December, 1965. The headquarters of the Magistrate is situated at Kolar Town. The recoveries that had been made from accused No. 1 were between 26th December, 1965 and 31st December, 1965, which are of later date. It was however contended on behalf of the State that those weapons were already sent to the Magistrate even prior to the arrest of respondent No. 1 i.e., on 26th December, 1965. Therefore it cannot be concluded that those weapons could have possibly been planted. But the prosecution could have easily produced the property forms by obtaining the same or its certified copy from the Magistrate's Court. Further no reasons are given for tearing the pages from the register Exhibit D-22. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the possibility of replacing the weapons is ruled out. It was further argued in this connection by Mr. Ramachandra Rao on behalf of the respondents that it is not borne by the evidence that the weapons seized were packed and sealed before the panchayatdars and this circumstance also creates suspicion in the case. We think that his contention cannot be said to be void of force. There is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution to show that the weapons seized were packed and sealed in the presence of the panchas. We think that his contention cannot be said to be void of force. There is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution to show that the weapons seized were packed and sealed in the presence of the panchas. It is very necessary that they should have been properly packed and sealed in the presence of the panchayatdars so that there cannot be any ground for suspicion that such articles could have been tampered with in any way subsequently. Thus the resulting position is, (1) None of the persons from whom the weapons are alleged to have been recovered has identified the same with reference to any particular marks or number on the weapons; (2) The panchayat witnesses also have not been made to identify them with reference to their signatures on the chits pasted on the weapons. They have simply deposed to the effect that similar kind of weapons had been recovered at the time of preparation of the Mahazars. But that does not conclude that the weapons which were recovered at the time of the preparation of the panchanamas were the same that had been identified by them in Court. At the most, the evidence of their identification is of a general character, which takes one nowhere. (3) With regard to the identification by the Investigating Officer P.W. 49, we have already observed that it is not safe to rely upon his evidence in that regard. On the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the identification of the weapons has not been satisfactorily established. That apart, having come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of theft, the question of recovery of articles and their identification cannot have any material effect in the case. The charges against the accused persons are for offences punishable under sections 457 , 380 and 411, Indian Penal Code. There is no direct evidence to prove the offence of house-breaking and theft. Therefore no conviction can be based against the accused either for the offence under sections 457 or for the offence of theft punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. In fairness tothe learned Public Prosecutor we must mention that he did not take up the stand that conviction can be based against the accused persons under those charges. Therefore no conviction can be based against the accused either for the offence under sections 457 or for the offence of theft punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. In fairness tothe learned Public Prosecutor we must mention that he did not take up the stand that conviction can be based against the accused persons under those charges. But he contended that the offence punishable under section 411, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the first accused, since the weapons recovered are traceable tothe possession of that accused. Now, in order to sustain a conviction under section 411, Indian Penal Code, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused dishonestly received or retained stolen property knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The prosecution therefore has got to prove — (1) that the property was stolen; (2) that it was received or retained by the accused; and (3) that the accused knew or had reason to believe it to be stolen property. The prosecution may, however, prove these ingredients either by positive evidence or by certain presumptions. Section. 114 of the Evidence Act, and especially illustration (a) to that section, speaks of a presumption. It is said that a Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing it to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. But this presumption does not mean that the burden of proof is shifted on to the accused. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove all the necessary ingredients of the section. It is clear that one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code is that theft must be established. In the instant case, we have found that the factum of theft has not been satisfactorily established. To sustain a conviction under section 411 Indian Penal Code that was the essential ingredient, which is lacking in this case. Therefore, the material on record does not justify a conviction under section 411 Indian Penal Code. The remaining charges against the accused persons are under section 3 read with section 25 (1) (a) and section 5 read with section 25(1) (c) of the Arms Act. Therefore, the material on record does not justify a conviction under section 411 Indian Penal Code. The remaining charges against the accused persons are under section 3 read with section 25 (1) (a) and section 5 read with section 25(1) (c) of the Arms Act. We have already held that the identification of the articles recovered has not been satisfactorily established by the prosecution evidence, which is distructive of the argument that the articles recovered, viz., M.Os. Nos. 6, 9, 2, 12, 13, 15, 23 and 24 are the same articles that were recovered at the instance of accused No. 1. That being so on the evidence adduced in the case, no conviction can be based under those sections against accused No. 1. What emerges from the above discussion is that the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution is inconclusive to base a conviction for the offences with which accused No. 1 had been charged. After acareful consideration of the evidence on record and scrutinising the same, we are of the opinion that it is rather unsafe to rely on the prosecution evidence to base a conviction against the accused No. 1 for the offences for which he had been charged, and we do not feel that certianty which is necessary for basing a conviction against the accused under those sections. Hence we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of acquittal made by the trial Court. The appeal as mentioned above is not pressed against accused No. 2 to accused No. 5 on behalf of the State. In the result, this appeal is disallowed and the same is dismissed. We express our appreciation to Mr. Ramachandra Rao who appeared on behalf of accused No. 1, for appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 2 to 5 also at our request and assisting us, although accused Nos. 2 to 5 had not effected their appearance in the appeal. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.