JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - Lalai applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 T.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. He was sentenced to undergo R. 1, for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appeal preferred by Lallai was dismissed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur. He has now preferred this revision. 2. Between the night of February 10 and 11. 1979, 600 metres of electric wire was stolen from the Transmission line between villages Gorsar and Akorhi, police station Vindhyachal in the district of Mirzapur. A first information report of this theft was lodged by P.W. 5 Sri Jagnarain Misra, Assistant Engineer. 3. On the basis of the report, the case was investigated by Rama Shanker Singh, S.I. while the matter was still under investigation, the applicant was arrested by the investigating Officer on a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, After his arrest, he confessed his complicity in the of the electric wire and offered to have the stolen wire recovered. The Investigating Officer Rarna Shankar Singh accompanied by the recovery witnesses, proceeded to the house of the applicant and recovered 25 Kgs. of high transmission wire on the pointing out of the applicant. This, in short, is the prosecution case. 4. Now, Section 115, Illustration (a), inter alia, provides that if a stolen article is recovered from the possession of a person, the court may presume that such person is either a thief or a receiver of a stolen goods. The question which calls for consideration in this revision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the wire alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant was a stolen article. Sri Jagnarain Misra (P.W. 5) stated in his testimony that the type of wire which was recovered from the possession of the applicant is supplied only to the government and so far as he knew, it was not available for sale in the market. This statement in itself was ambiguous and a qualified one. Sri Jagnarain Misra (P.W. 5) stated in his testimony that the type of wire which was recovered from the possession of the applicant is supplied only to the government and so far as he knew, it was not available for sale in the market. This statement in itself was ambiguous and a qualified one. Sri Jagnarain Misra, Assistant Engineer, however, threw away the prosecution case when in his crossexamination, he conceded that he could not say whether a wire of the type alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant was sold to customers in the open market. He further stated that he could not say whether the wire shown to him in the court was the same wire which had been stolen from the transmission line. The statement of the Assistant Engineer Sri Jagnarain Misra, therefore, does not prove that the wire which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant was stolen property. On the basis of that statement, it was highly unsafe to record an order of conviction against the applicant the courts below have totally overlooked this aspect of the case and their judgment are vitiated on that account: 6. The result is that this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 411 I.P.C. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds arc discharged and he need not surrender. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the applicant.