JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate under his judgment dated 18-12-1986 convicted the accused petitioner under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Under each of the count the accused petitioner was sentenced undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences under both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. Along with the accused petitioner two other accused persons Suresh and Gopal were also tried and each of them also was convicted and sentenced. The accused petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur, but the appeal of the accused petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge under his judgment dated 5-9-1988 as time barred. In other words, the learned Judge has not dismissed the appeal on merits and the case on merits was not even examined. 2. As the present revision petition is confined to the accused petitioner, suffice to give the facts so far as the petitioner is concerned, they are these - Rajesh Bajaj (PW 1) is the proprietor or partner of a Bajaj Soap Factory situated Moti Dangari Road Parander garden Jaipur City. In the night intervening 22nd and 23rd of March, 1985 a theft took place in the aforesaid factory premises and it was only detected in the morning of 23rd of March, 1985. It was noticed that a sum of Rs. 1756/- was missing, a pocket calculator, one Inchitape, one citizen lady's watch which was not in working order, 10 bags having print of Chaudhary shop which have also been stolen. 3. So far as the accused is concerned, he was arrested on 23-3-1985 in Ram Niwash garden, a few bags and an `Inchitape' has been recovered from the accused petitioner at the time of arrest. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the accused petitioner is concerned only a few bags and one 'Inchitape' was recovered which is such easily available in the market and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner was in possession of any stolen property soon after the theft. Sessions Judge. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the accused petitioner is concerned only a few bags and one 'Inchitape' was recovered which is such easily available in the market and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner was in possession of any stolen property soon after the theft. A look at the report (Ex. P 1) will show that all the property which were mentioned in it were 10 bags, on which was printed the trade mark of the shop and telephone number, one Inchitape. It is well known that as and when the product is sold by the manufacturer, either along with the bag is given or might be given and such bag can easily be available in the market. 5. A look at the statement of Rajesh Bajaj (PW 1) will show that all that has been stated by him is that bags article 1 to 10, present the court belonged to his factory and had been stolen. Mahabir Prasad (PW 6) is a constable and he arrested Govind along with others. He states that he had caught hold of Govind accused petitioner when he was standing at the museum at the Ramniwash garden and he was carrying bags in his hand. He has not stated as to which of the two or three bags which are said to have been recovered from the accused petitioner were out of the bags which-were present in the court. He has clearly stated that he is not in a position to say as to which of the bags out of 10 have been recovered from the accused petitioner. Tarachand (PW 7) is not in a position to say that two or three bags which are said to have been recovered from the accused petitioner were out of 10 bags which were present in the court. He had not supported the case of the prosecution. Harmukh Pareek (PW 9) is the SHO and it is who arrested the accused petitioner allegedly from Ram Niwash garden. He admits that 'Inchitape' which was recovered from the accused petitioner is of common pattern and easily available in the market. From the evidence on the record it could not be said that the property which is said to have been recovered from the accused petitioner was stolen property. 6. He admits that 'Inchitape' which was recovered from the accused petitioner is of common pattern and easily available in the market. From the evidence on the record it could not be said that the property which is said to have been recovered from the accused petitioner was stolen property. 6. It may be said that the two independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the case rests only on the evidence of the police witnesses. 7. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the finding that the accused was in possession of the stolen property is perverse. 8. The revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the accused petitioner u/t 380 and 457 IPC is set aside. The judgment of the courts below are set aside. The accused petitioner is acquited of the aforesaid charges. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds which shall stand discharge.Revision Allowed. *******