ORDER (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - An order of acquittal passed on the 10th of September, 1986, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazagaon, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 1971/P/1984 is impugned in the present appeal. The respondent/original accused was charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for having, on the 29th of November, 1983, at about 1.15 a.m. at the junction of Sukhalaji Street and Jairajbhai Lane, Nagpada, committed theft in respect of motor taxi No. MRO- 3272. At the trial, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Shri Adam Sule-man Baradia who is the original complaint He was the driver in respect of the aforesaid taxi. After the taxi was stolen away he went to the Nagpada police station and lodged his First Information Report (Exhibit P). While he was still at the police station, P.W. 2 Shri Shag Faridul Haq brought the taxi at the police station when the accused, who was found driving the taxi, was forced out of it and brought to the police station. The First Information Report (Exhibit P) was recorded by P.W. 3 Shri Abdul Rehman Ali Beg, a P.S.I. attached at the Nagpada Police Station. P.S.I. Beg had also witnessed accused being forced out of the driver's seat of the above taxi by P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq. 2. At the trial, P.W. 1 the complainant, turned hostile. He refused to identify the accused in the Court. He was, therefore, declared hostile. P.W. 2 Shri Shag Faridul Haq and P.W. 3 Shri Abdul Rehman Ali Beg have deposed in terms of the prosecution case. 3. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned ORDER and order, has refused to record an order of conviction on the ground that the prosecution case was not supported by the complainant. Since the complainant, who is the main aggrieved party, had not supported the prosecution, he declined to place reliance on the evidence of the other two witnesses namely P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq and P.W. 3 Abdul Rehman Ali Beg. 4. I have heard Shri Nalawade, the learned Public Prosecutor, who has submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in not giving due weight and not placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq and P.W. 3 Abdul Rehman Ali Beg: He has submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is faultless. 4. I have heard Shri Nalawade, the learned Public Prosecutor, who has submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in not giving due weight and not placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq and P.W. 3 Abdul Rehman Ali Beg: He has submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is faultless. The same can be relied upon for arriving at a finding that the accused was found driving the taxi soon after the same was stolen away. The accused was, thus, found in possession of stolen property immediately after the theft. Hence, an inference can safely be drawn that the accused is thief. Hence, even if the complainant has failed to support the prosecution, the offence can be held proved on the strength of the evidence of the aforesaid P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq and P.W. 3 Abdul Rehman Ali Beg. 5. The accused has been served. He has, however, not caused an appearance to be filed on his behalf. I have, therefore, not had the benefit of arguments being advanced on behalf of the accused. 6. In my ORDER, the learned Magistrate of the trial Court has erred in not giving due weight to the evidence of P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq and P.W. 3 Abdul Rehman Ali Beg. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found driving the taxi in a rash manner. P.W. 2 had to jump aside in order to save himself from being knocked by the taxi. Since he had narrowly escaped he chased the taxi in order to catch the driver. On account of congestion of traffic the taxi had to halt at the junction. At that stage, P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq apprehended the accused and forced him to take the taxi to the police station. The" accused was taken to the police station by P.W. 2 Shag Faridul Haq and this was witnessed by P.W. 3 Abdul Rehman Ali Beg. In my view, the above evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused was found in possession of the taxi soon after the theft. Indeed the accused was brought to the police station while the complainant was still there after recording of his First Information Report. In my view, the above evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused was found in possession of the taxi soon after the theft. Indeed the accused was brought to the police station while the complainant was still there after recording of his First Information Report. Since the accused is found to be in possession immediately after the offence of theft, a presumption can safely be drawn under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act that the accused, in the present case is the thief. In the circumstances, in my view, the respondent/ original accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On the question of sentence I find that the offences of this nature are on an increase. No mitigating circumstances are brought on record on behalf of the accused. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine a further rigorous imprisonment for one month will, therefore, meet the ends of justice. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of acquittal passed on the 10th of September, 1986, by the learned Additional Chief Metr9politan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazagaon, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 1971/P/1984 is set aside and the respondent/original accused is convicted under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Warrants of arrest be issued against the respondent/original accused. Appeal allowed.