R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner stands convicted under sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'i. P. C. ') and sentenced to undergo rigorous, imprisonment for one year on each count. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that the informant Sitaram Behera (P. W. 1) is a small business-man dealing with grocery articles in village Jamtal. On 27. 9. 1987 after their meal P. W. 1 and his inmates retired to their beds. Next morning i. e. on 28. 9. 1987 P. W. 1 found that the main door was hooked from outside. He raised hullah to open it which was done by a lady called Sulochana. As the door was hooked from outside. he suspected that something might have gone wrong inside his house. Accordingly, he went to his bed room and found a tin box containing Rs. 10,000/- with a gold earing was missing. He immediately suspected the petitioner to be the culprit. He informed about the incident to Dinabandhu Pradhan, Narayan Bhoi and others and asked them to keep watch over movement of the petitioner. On 29. 9. 1987 when he (P. W. 1) was in his shop, he was informed that the petitioner was caught while he was fleeing away and money was recovered from him. F. I. R. was then lodged by him at Jujumara police station. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioner was one of denial. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. he claimed that the money in question belonged to him. ( 4 ) THE conviction of the petitioner is based Solely on the extra-judicial confession made before P. Ws. 2 and 3. There is no dispute that P. W. 1 lodged the F. I. R. on 29. 9. 1987 when the occurrence was said to have taken place in the night of 27. 9. 1987. There is also no dispute that a sum of Rs. 8,613/- was seized on 29. 9. 1987 as per the seizure list Ext. 3. ( 5 ) SHRI Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire prosecution should be doubted inasmuch as there is no explanation by the informant for the delay in lodging the F. I. R. He submits that P. W. 1. 8,613/- was seized on 29. 9. 1987 as per the seizure list Ext. 3. ( 5 ) SHRI Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire prosecution should be doubted inasmuch as there is no explanation by the informant for the delay in lodging the F. I. R. He submits that P. W. 1. was, as if, waiting for the information and after having came to know about the seizure of money, he lodged the F. I. R. implicating. the petitioner as the culprit. According to the learned counsel, P. W. 1 could have lodged the F. I. R. on the next morning following the date of incident even suspecting the petitioner which he did not do. Shri Ray also contends that the circumstances in which confession was made by the petitioner shows it was not voluntary. ( 6 ) THE extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner before P. Ws. 2 and 3 is retracted. In order to accept the confession it has to be established that it was not only true but also voluntary. The evidence of P. W. 2 shows that he followed the petitioner in the bus from Mundei Chhak and when the petitioner got down at Yatra Chhak, he also got down. P. W. 2 wanted to catch the petitioner but the latter after giving a push ran away. P. W. 2 and others chased the petitioner. In close of the chasing, the petitioner threw the bag. P. W. 2 stated that at that time, the villagers enquired the matter and the petitioner confessed that he committed lurking house trespass and theft of some money from the house of P. W. 1. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that Dhanupali police reached at the spot and money amounting to Rs. 8,613/- was seized. P. W. 3 his examination-in chief itself has stated that the petitioner confessed under pressure. P. W. 5 stated that the petitioner was chased and was caught. He has not stated anything about the petitioner making confession. P. W. 6 stated that the petitioner could not tell anything out other. From the aforesaid evidence, I am of the opinion that the confession made by the petitioner was not voluntary and the same was obtained by putting him under the threat. He has not stated anything about the petitioner making confession. P. W. 6 stated that the petitioner could not tell anything out other. From the aforesaid evidence, I am of the opinion that the confession made by the petitioner was not voluntary and the same was obtained by putting him under the threat. The confession being not voluntary and in absence of any other evidence connecting the petitioner in the crime, the conviction cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. ( 8 ) THE order of acquittal in favour of the petitioner does not entitle him to get back the amount of Rs. 8,613/- which was seized as per the seizure list Ext. 3. Who should be entitled to the said amount is a question to be decided in a separate proceeding. Criminal revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed. .