Short Note : The aforesaid two revision applications are against a common judgment in two appeals filed by these applicants before t he Sessions Judge. Mandsaur by which the conviction of both the applicants for offences under sections 380 and 457 read with section 75 of the India1 Penal Code and the sentence of three year's R. I. awarded there-under on each count by the Magistrate First Class, Neemuch were maintained. 2. Held: The seized articles were identified not only by the proprietors of the Snow-white Washing Company but by the customers who had handed over these clothes and other articles to the proprietors of the said Company. Article is a white Pant seized vide Ex. P-13 from the house of Damu and this has been identified by Kunjilal (PW 48) as one of the clothes lost from his shop in the aforesaid incident vide Ex. P-22 a bush-shirt was scized by Sumerchand (PW 42) from one Satishchandra (PW 39) according to whom the said bush-shirt was given to him by the applicant Damu for being washed. Art. 21 is a Sari, which was seized from Shriram (PW 18) at the instance of the accused Damu. Similar seizures were made from the accused Damu of the Shirt (Art. 14) a stretch-lone Pant (Art. I). Jari Sari (Art. 8). These articles also have been identified by the proprietors of the Snowwhite Washing Company as the same which were lost in the said incident of theft. 3. So far as the accused Damu is concerned. Jersey (Art. 27) and Pant (Art. 28) were on his person when they were seized vide Ex. P- 15, these two articles have been identified by Madanlal (PW 41) and Kanwarlal (PW 37) Kunjilal (PW 45) also identified them as the same which were lost in the aforesaid incident of theft The applicant contends that they were not in any way concerned with the incident of theft and house-breaking which took place in Neemuch and that they were falsely implicated with the possession and subsequent recovery of the aforesaid articles. But the Court below have observed that in the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, no material has been brought on record to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. In this Court also the applicants were not represented by a counsel. But the Court below have observed that in the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, no material has been brought on record to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. In this Court also the applicants were not represented by a counsel. Shri Pawnekar Advocate, however, appeared voluntarily for these two, accused and took me through the relevant evidence. He also was not able to refer to any part of the prosecution evidence, which could render the prosecution case against the applicants as unreliable. In these circumstances the conviction of the applicants does not call for any interference. In view of the fact that the applicants were also charged under section 75 of the Indian Penel Code because of their persons conviction, the sentences awarded to them do not call for any interference. Revision dismissed.