P. C. PATHAK, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) APPELLANTTS conviction is solely based on discovery memorandum (Ex. P. 10) leading to the seizuer of a silver ingot (Art. A-3) and Sutiya (Art. A-I) from the possession of Vijayalal (P. W. 6 ). The prosecution alleges that the appellant gave memorandum (Ex. P. 10) on 13-5-1983 at about 17 Oclock to Station House Officer Bharat Singh (P. W. 11 ). The appellant thereafter led Bharat Singh in presence of witnesses Ghanshyamdas and Chintaman to the shop of Vijayalal (P. W. 6) on 14-5-1983 and at his instance the Station House Officer seized a silver ingot and Sutiya from him. From Vijayalal the police also seized a Register (Ex. P. 4) in which the relevant entry of alleged sale dated 12-4-1983 was made. These two articles along with others were put up for identification as per memo (Ex. P. 15), which was conducted by Ramsunder Singh (P. W. 12 ). Smt. Batasiya (P. W. 4) and Sukhmanti (P. W. 5) identified Sutiya as belonging to Sukhmanti. On these allegations appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted, hence this appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged memorandum and seizure of TSutiya from Vijayalal cannot be connected to the appellant. TSutiyat is an ornament commonly available. Even if its identity is established, it is Vijayalal who should explain the possession of Sutiya. Learned Government supported the conviction and sentences. ( 4 ) THE question for decision is whether the appellant is proved to be receiver of property stolen in dacoity. Reliance was placed on memorandum (Ex. p. 10 ). The Station House Officer Bharat Singh alone was examined by the prosecution then it is said that the appellant led the police officer to the shop of Vijayalal. Vijayalal (P. W. 6) states that Sutiya and Sahotiya were sold to him by the appellant. Four or five days thereafter the police brought the appellant to his shop and on his information the Station House Officer directed him to produce the ornaments. Accordingly, Bahotiya as ingot and Sutiya were seized by the police from him, as per seizure memo. Vijayalal (P. W. 6) states that Sutiya and Sahotiya were sold to him by the appellant. Four or five days thereafter the police brought the appellant to his shop and on his information the Station House Officer directed him to produce the ornaments. Accordingly, Bahotiya as ingot and Sutiya were seized by the police from him, as per seizure memo. (Ex. P. 3 ). He also produced Register of sales (Ex. p. 4), which bears signature of the appellant. In crossexamination, Vijayalal admitted that the Register after seizure was returned to him on the following day. On a perusal of the Register, I find that the relevant entry initially had the name of one Vikramaditya as seller. That name is however scored out and below his the name of the appellant is written in it. The entry is dated 12-4-1983 while the seizure took place on 14-5-1983. The next entry of sale in the said Register is dated 13-5-1983. Looking to the scoring of the name and the irregular manner in which it was maintained, a serious doubt is cast to its genuineness. While in respect of other sales names of witnesses are written but there is no such name in whose presence the alleged sale was made to him by the appellant. Merely because the last column bears signature of the appellant, it cannot be necessarily concluded that Manohar Singh was the seller. No explanation is available as to why the name of one Vikramaditya was written as seller of Sutiya in question. There is also over-writing as regards weight. ( 5 ) THIS apart, the identification parade conducted by Ramsunder Singh is also not free from doubt. According to him, he had not put Sutiya for identification. This however is contrary to identification memo (Ex. p. 12 ). The witness also stated that no other ornament like TSutiyat was mixed with it. It is true that Batasiya (P. W. 4) and Sukhmanti (P. W. 5) identified the Sutiya in the court and this Court could act on the dock identification. However before doing that the prosecution should have led reliable evidence to prove the memorandum and the seizure. A serious doubt is cast for non-examination of the attesting witnesses and scoring and over-writings in the relevant Register (Ex. p. 4 ). The benefit of doubt of all these, must go to the accused. However before doing that the prosecution should have led reliable evidence to prove the memorandum and the seizure. A serious doubt is cast for non-examination of the attesting witnesses and scoring and over-writings in the relevant Register (Ex. p. 4 ). The benefit of doubt of all these, must go to the accused. ( 6 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence charged with. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. .