JUDGMENT (ORAL) M.S. Vaidya, J. - This is a State appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 15th September 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda, Goa in Criminal Case No. 110/s/91 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda acquitting the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in that criminal case of the charge for offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A first information report dated 30th September, 1991 come to be lodged with P.S.I., Ponda Police Station by William Farnandes, (P.W. 4), an employee of Cobra Detective Security Service, which were employed by the Hindusthan Petroleum for guarding their property at Kundaim Industrial Estate. P.S.I. Uday Parab, (P.W. 10), took over the investigations on the basis of suspicion expressed by the complainant himself, arrested accused no. 4 (who is not a party to this proceeding). The P.S.I. claimed that original accused no. 4 had given him certain information about the storage of cylinders in the premises belonging to present respondent nos. 1 and 3. However, no Panchnama under section 27 was drawn. A raid was organised and 22 gas cylinders were seized. The respondent nos. 1 to 2 were then arrested. The respondent no. 3 obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court and was later on arrested and released. From some source, an information was allegedly received by P.S.I. Uday Parab that respondent no. 4 was selling refilled cylinders. Therefore, accused no. 5 was also arrested and 41 cylinders were seized from his custody. Finally, all the respondents and original accused no. 4 were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 I.P.C. 2. The learned Magistrate, who appreciated the evidence at length in his judgment, found accused no. 4 guilty of the offence of theft and convicted him of the offence punishable under section 379 LP.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year. Accused no. 4 has by this time, suffered the sentence because, he was given set off for the period from 1.10.1991, which was the date of his arrest. No appeal was preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to him in the matter, though the property stolen was alleged to be worth Rs. 93,000/-. 3. The respondent no. 4 has by this time, suffered the sentence because, he was given set off for the period from 1.10.1991, which was the date of his arrest. No appeal was preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to him in the matter, though the property stolen was alleged to be worth Rs. 93,000/-. 3. The respondent no. 4 admitted possession of 41 cylinders and contended that as the practice of the agents of Hindusthan Petroleum supplying the cylinders individually to the customers was stopped, he was carrying on a service agency in which he used to get the cards and empty cylinders from the customers and have them filled up for being re-supplied to the respective customers, as against an amount charged by him for the said service. In support of this, the respondent no. 4 examined several witnesses and they were believed by the learned Magistrate. We were told at the Bar by Mr. Naik, that Hindusthan Petroleum had thereafter filed a Civil Suit also in the matter and in the said suit, the-order of return of the 41 cylinders to respondent no. 4 has not been disturbed by the Civil Court. Criminal Revision Application No. 29/9 2 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 307/92 against the order of the Magistrate filed by Hindusthan Petroleum, in connection with the order of return of cylinders to respondent no. 4 also, came to be dismissed on 29th March, 1993. Mr. Naik, tendered on record a xerox copy of the aforesaid judgment. Thus, it appears that both the Civil Court as well as the Sessions' Court have accepted the finding recorded by the Magistrate as also the order passed by him for the return of cylinders to respondent no. 4. 4. Even on perusal of the evidence in the main Criminal Case, we find hardly any reason to disturb the finding of the Magistrate in respect of respondent no. 4 particularly because, the cylinders in question were not proved to have been the cylinders that were allegedly removed from the possession of the first informant or Hindustan Petroleum from the campus at the Industrial Estate, Kundaim. Moreover, the explanation offered by respondent no. 4 in respect of possession of the cylinders does not appear so improbable or so unreasonable as to enable us to disturb the order of acquittal passed in his favour. 5. Moreover, the explanation offered by respondent no. 4 in respect of possession of the cylinders does not appear so improbable or so unreasonable as to enable us to disturb the order of acquittal passed in his favour. 5. Coming, then, to the case as against respondent nos. 1 to 3, according to the prosecution, it was accused no. 4 (the convict) who had made a disclosure before the P.S.I. in respect of the cylinders allegedly sold by him to respondent nos. 1 to 3. However, as no Panchnama under section 27 was ever drawn, the statement allegedly made by accused no. 4 to the P.S.I., as narrated by him, could hardly be proved or relied upon for the purposes of holding that any particular fact was discovered on the basis of the aforesaid statement. It is important to note that there is not a single witness, such as, a Panch witness or, any other witness from the police, to corroborate the version of P.S.I. Uday Parab, on the point of the aforesaid statement allegedly made by accused no. 4 before him. Again, it was alleged that the house-cum-business premises belonging to respondent nos. 1 to 3, were raided upon and twenty two cylinders were seized from those premises. On that point also, the evidence is not very satisfactory or cogent. P.W. 3, Kiran Dessai was said to be the Panch for Panchnama, (Exh. 3), drawn on 1.1 0.1991. He told that on 1.10.1991 he acted as a Panch for the house search and attachment Panchnama drawn by the police in the premises of Mhalasa Cold Drinks, which were residential cum-commercial premises. He told that he did not remember the names of the owners, but he added that 16 cylinders were shown to him in a room immediately after the entrance and that the said room looked like a go-down. According to him, 6 cylinders were found in the kitchen out of which 3 cylinders did contain liquefied gas and others were empty. None of the seized cylinders was shown to the witness at the time of his deposition, as a result of which, the witness had no opportunity to identify any of the cylinders as the cylinders seized from that particular place. Mr. None of the seized cylinders was shown to the witness at the time of his deposition, as a result of which, the witness had no opportunity to identify any of the cylinders as the cylinders seized from that particular place. Mr. Naik, rightly challenged the veracity of the witness on the ground that though he knew that one Gunwant Singh was an employee, like himself, at the Cobra Detective and Security Services, he did not know who was the second Panch that had signed the Panchnama. The Panchnama, (Exh. 3-A), indicated that Gunwant Singh was really the Panch No.2 for the Panchnama. There is, therefore, reason to suppose that Panchnama, (Exh. 3-A), also was not drawn according to law in the presence of two responsible persons from the locality. The services of two persons, who were the employees of the first informant, were pressed into service for representing that the Panchnama as stated at Exh. 3-A, was drawn at the premises of Mhalasa Cold Drinks. Gunwant Singh was not examined by the prosecution. If one looks to the evidence of P.S.I. Uday Parab for corroboration to the Panchnama or the facts deposed to by Panch Kiran Dessai, one finds that he has been most cryptic about the alleged seizure. In his deposition at Exh. 40, Uday Parab deposed to the said seizure in one cryptic line saying that 22 gas cylinders were seized from the house of accused No.1. He did not substantiate the statement that six cylinders were found in the house and 16 in some other go-down like room. He did not depose to the presence of the Panch - Kiran Dessai or Panch Gunwant Singh. It is unwise to rely upon such an evidence for the purposes of holding that the cylinders were seized from the alleged premises in the alleged manner. 6. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 had denied the possession of the said cylinders. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that the portion that was not raided upon belonged to them or, was in their possession. Though the Panchnama stated that respondent No.2 Mahesh Gurudas Naik was present on the scene of offence -when the cylinders were seized from his residence, neither the P.S.I. nor the Panch - Kiran Dessai have deposed to that fact. Though the Panchnama stated that respondent No.2 Mahesh Gurudas Naik was present on the scene of offence -when the cylinders were seized from his residence, neither the P.S.I. nor the Panch - Kiran Dessai have deposed to that fact. Under such circumstances, the evidence on record does not permit a Court to hold, according to law, that the cylinders in question were satisfactorily proved to be in possession of respondent nos. 1 to 3. 7. Again, the evidence of identification of the cylinders as the cylinders stolen from the campus of Hindusthan Petroleum at the Industrial Estate, Kundaim also is wanting. 8. Indeed, in the context of identification of the stolen property, it is significant to note that, though, in all 63 cylinders were seized in the course of investigation, the loss reported by the first informant as on 30.9.1991 was only of 46 cylinders. There is, therefore, no connection with the number of cylinders detected with the number of cylinders allegedly stolen. 9. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution was of such a nature, it was not possible for the Magistrate to heard the respondents guilty of the offence in question. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal much less, with the order of disposal of the Muddamal property passed in the case. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.