Arun B. Saharya ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against a judgment dated 1. 4. 80 of Shri J. K. Pali, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, acquitting the two respondents, namely, Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi Kumar and Kailash Chand, who were charged and tried for offences under Section 411, 414 and 471/34 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) CASE of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Major S. K. Chakravarti lodged a written report dated 4. 1. 77 at Police Station Delhi Cantt. , stating that on 3. 1. 77 at about 2000 hrs. , from the Army Hospital, he lost his Bajaj Scooter of light grey (near white) colour bearing registration No. DHJ-6266. On the basis of this information, formal FIR No. 8/77 dated 4. 1. 77 (Ex. Public Witness-7/a) was registered. On 17. 11. 77, Sl Bhag Chand (Public Witness-13) along with other officers of the Crime Branch, Delhi Police including ASI Gurcharan Singh (Public Witness-6) and Sl Risal Singh (Public Witness-8), arrested accused Ravi from Village Kanwali, P. S. Khool, Near Rewari, Distt. Mahender Garh, in the State of Haryana. He disclosed that he, along with accused Kailash Chand, had sold a scooter to a person in village Dharan and that he could get the scooter recovered from that place. His statement was recorded in the form of a memo (Ex. Public Witness-6/a ). Accused Ravi then led the police party to village Dharan, P. S. Bhawal also in Distt. Mahender Garh. There, he pointed out the house of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4, who produced a second hand scooter together with four documents, which were taken in possession vide Seizure Memo (Ex. Public Witness-4/d ). In the month of June, 1978, Sl Jaipal Singh Public Witness-11 obtained from Dehradun an extract ofthe record maintained by the Registration Authority in respect of scooter No. USK-4690 mentioned in the Seizure Memo (Ex. Public Witness-4/d ). Later, Sl Puran Singh Public Witness-3, took up the investigation. He examined, among other aspects, record of the Regional Transport Office, New Delhi concerning the stolen scooter No. DHJ-6266 of Major S. K. Chakrarvarty. He arrested accused Kailash also, and put up the Challan against the accused Ravi and Kailash for the offences under Section 379/ 411/471 Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) AN application (Ex. He examined, among other aspects, record of the Regional Transport Office, New Delhi concerning the stolen scooter No. DHJ-6266 of Major S. K. Chakrarvarty. He arrested accused Kailash also, and put up the Challan against the accused Ravi and Kailash for the offences under Section 379/ 411/471 Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) AN application (Ex. Public Witness-9/a) was moved by Prehlad Singh Public Witness-9 before the trial Court, for obtaining specimen hand-writing of accused Kailash, on the plea that two receipts representing payment of the sale price ofthe scooter produced by Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 and mentioned in the Seizure Memo (Ex. Public Witness-4/d), were alleged to be executed by him. that he was proclaimed offender and had been recently arrested. Accused Kailash declined to give his specimen hand-writing. This fact was recorded by way of an endorsement (Ex. Public Witness-10/a) made on the application by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Metropolitan Magistrate (Public Witness-10 ). ( 4 ) CHARGE with three heads was framed against the two accused persons. Firstly, that on or about 3. 1. 77, they both, in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily assisted each other for disposing of stolen scooter with fake No. USK- 4690 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 414/34 Indian Penal Code; secondly, that on or about 21. 3. 77, they both, in furtherance of common intention, used fake number plate bearing No. USK-4690 having reason to believe that the number plate was forged one and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471/34 Indian Penal Code and thirdly, that on 17. 11. 77 they dishonestly retained or were found in possession of the earlier mentioned scooter which they knew or had reasons to believe to be stolen property belonging to Major S. K. Chakravarty and the same was recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 411/34 Indian Penal Code. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. In addition to the oral and documentary evidence broadly mentioned above, some more particulars may now be stated. Mahesh Kumar Public Witness-2, Clerk RTO Officer, New Delhi brought with him original record of Scooter No. DLJ-6266, Engine No. 250864 and testified that it was registered in the name of S. K. Chakravarty. In addition to the oral and documentary evidence broadly mentioned above, some more particulars may now be stated. Mahesh Kumar Public Witness-2, Clerk RTO Officer, New Delhi brought with him original record of Scooter No. DLJ-6266, Engine No. 250864 and testified that it was registered in the name of S. K. Chakravarty. Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 deposed that the accused Ravi and Kailash were on visiting terms and were known to him. He asked them to arrange for a scooter. On his request, they brought to him a scooter on 21. 3. 77. Accused Kailash Chand apprised him that the scooter belonged to his friend, but he brushed it aside. He told Kailash that he was "not concerned with any other person or his friend". Sale price of the scooter was settled at Rs. 3,300. 00. He paid a sum of Rs. 1,300. 00 as advance , got the receipt (Ex. Public Witness-4/a) written and signed by accused Kailash describing the vehicle as "my Scooter", and he kept the scooter. On 1. 4. 77, accused Kailash came to him and demanded payment of the balance amount of Rs. 2,000. 00, which he paid. Receipt Ex. Public Witness-4/b was executed by accused Kailash also, who also handed over the certificate of insurance Ex. Public Witness-4/ C of the scooter. Further, he deposed that on 17. 11. 77 accused Ravi Kumar, who was in handcuffs, came to his house with some officers of Delhi Police. He informed the police officers that he had purchased the scooter from accused Ravi and Kailash. He handed over to them the two receipts Ex. Public Witness-4/a, Ex. Public Witness-4/b, the insurance certificate Ex. Public Witness-4/c and one driving licence together with the scooter, chassis number of which was written in seizure memo (Ex. Public Witness-4/d ). In cross-examination, Suraj Bhan maintained that on the first occasion accused Ravi was there with accused Kailash. About the second time, he did not remember. Accused Ravi did not sign the receipt nor he asked him to do so. ( 6 ) ACCUSED Ravi Kumar, in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , stated that he did not know that scooter No. DLJ-6266, Engine No. 250864, which was registered in the name of Major S. K. Chakravarty, was stolen on 3. 1. Accused Ravi did not sign the receipt nor he asked him to do so. ( 6 ) ACCUSED Ravi Kumar, in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , stated that he did not know that scooter No. DLJ-6266, Engine No. 250864, which was registered in the name of Major S. K. Chakravarty, was stolen on 3. 1. 77, and that one driving licence No. 5423 ND in the name of V. N. Malhotra was also lying in the dickey of the stolen scooter. He denied as incorrect that he made disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a and led the police party to the house of Suraj Bhan at village Dharan and got recovered the scooter Ex. P-1 original No. DHJ-6266 and its fake No. USK-4690 from Suraj Bhan, that on 21. 3. 77 he along with co-accused Kailash Chand had gone to Suraj Bhan with the said scooter and Suraj Bhan had asked them both to arrange the scooter for him, and that they both told Suraj Bhan that he had brought the scooter for him and asked Suraj Bhan to pay advance money of Rs. 1,300. 00, and that the bargain was settled and the receipt for Rs. 1,300. 00was written by co-accused Kailash which is Ex. Public Witness-4/a. He claimed that the case against him was false and that he was innocent. ( 7 ) ACCUSED Kailash Chand was asked about his refusal to give his specimen hand-writing on 13. 2. 79 when he was produced before Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Metropolitan Magistrate Public Witness-10. He explained that he had refused to do so because he was made to prepare both the receipts during the period when he was in police remand. Regarding the evidence that Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 knew him and co-accused Ravi and that he was on visiting terms with Suraj Bhan, accused Kailash answered: "it is incorrect. I saw him for the first time when he appeared in the Court". He also denied as incorrect the rest of the evidence also adduced in the statement of Suraj Bhan. He too claimed that the case against him was false and that he was innocent. ( 8 ) IN the impugned judgment, the trial Court has set out summary of the statements made by each of the prosecution witnesses. He also denied as incorrect the rest of the evidence also adduced in the statement of Suraj Bhan. He too claimed that the case against him was false and that he was innocent. ( 8 ) IN the impugned judgment, the trial Court has set out summary of the statements made by each of the prosecution witnesses. Then, the pleas advanced on behalf of the accused have been out-lined, inter alia, that the prosecution has failed to establish its case; that the three police witnesses Public Witness-6, Public Witness-8 and Public Witness-15, who were members of the raiding party and who claimed to have recovered the case property, had contradicted each other in their statements; that the witnesses were unable to tell the exact location of village Dharan and the place where disclosure statement of accused Ravi was recorded; that it was not possible to believe that the police party could go to Rewari and then to village Dharan and return the same day after arresting the accused and recovering the property on 17. 11. 77; and that the entire investigation was highly tainted and manoeuvered. Similarly, the plea of the public prosecutor is noted to the effect that the prosecution has proved recovery of the case property at the instance of the accused and so they should be convicted. Abruptly, without any discussion, the whole case is disposed of by recording the conclusion in the following manner:- Taking into consideration the respective arguments and evidence on record I am of the considered opinion that prosecution in this case has been miserably failed to prove their case. From the testimony of three police officials it clearly establish that the police officers nave never gone to the place of recovery and that they were never prepared a raiding party together. "the entire investigation is highly perverse and tainted. They are not found consistent on the point of recovery of the scooter. Further recovery of the scooter at the instance of accused Ravi. They even could not state as to how many accused were arrested on 17. 11. 77. The witness say that Hari Shanker and Ravi both were arrested from their house on that day while Public Witness 6 does not say a si ngle word about accused Hari Shanker. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion I do not find any case against both the accused persons. 11. 77. The witness say that Hari Shanker and Ravi both were arrested from their house on that day while Public Witness 6 does not say a si ngle word about accused Hari Shanker. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion I do not find any case against both the accused persons. Hence, I hereby acquit them in this case. The case property be returned to registered owner after the period of appeal if any. ( 10 ) IN appeal, learned counsel for the State contended: (1) that the impugned judgment is perfunctory and no cogent reasons e discernable for acquittal of both the accused on all the three heads of charge; (2) that the trial Court completely ignored the evidence of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4, who clearly stated that accused Ra and Kailash passed on to him the scooter and accused Kailash gave him the related documents which were seized by the police vide Ex. Public Witness-4/d; and (3) that the trial Court failed to consider that the stolen scooter was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a. ( 11 ) THE first ground of challenge is well taken. But, on this ground alone, the appeal cannot be allowed. In the impugned judgment, the trial Court has merely noted in the opening format Sections 414, 471, 411 and 34 Indian Penal Code, but does not even advert to the elements of the charge. The facts in issue are not discussed. Even the evidence is not marshalled in relation to the questions involved in the case. Of course, pleas advanced by both sides are set out and the conclusion recorded in the above mentioned terms. Since we are sitting in first appeal, we have gone through the entire evidence on record. We find, on the basis of the following discussion and for the reasons stated hereunder, that the conclusions reached by the trial Court, and consequent acquittal of the accused persons are correct. ( 12 ) ON merits, let us first dispose of the charge regarding alleged use of fake number plate bearing No. USK-4690 framed under Section 471 Indian Penal Code, which was merely touched and not seriously pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 12 ) ON merits, let us first dispose of the charge regarding alleged use of fake number plate bearing No. USK-4690 framed under Section 471 Indian Penal Code, which was merely touched and not seriously pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The charge is based upon the allegation that at the time of selling out the scooter to Suraj Bhan, the accused persons used fake number plate bearing No. USK-4690 having reasons to believe that it was forged . The charge is not that the accused persons forged documents for sale of the said scooter to Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 as was feebly suggested by learned counsel for the appellant. He was unable to show from the testimony of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 or any other evidence on record that the accused persons themselves changed the number plate of the scooter, or that they prepared the fake number plate, or that they knew or had reasons to believe that the same was forged . In any event, number plate of a scooter, like any other thing fixed on its body, is not a document , the making of which may be said to be forgery , falling within the ambit of Section 463 and Section 464, or the use of which may become punishable under Section 471 Indian Penal Code. ( 13 ) THE other heads of the charge were disposing of stolen property on or about 3. 1. 77, and retaining or being found in possession of stolen property on 17. 11. 77, punishable under Section 414 and Section 411 Indian Penal Code. The vital pieces of evidence that require discussion for purposes of both the heads of charge are: (1) disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a recorded by Sl Bhag Chand Public Witness-13 and witnessed by Sl Risal Singh Public Witness-8 and ASI Gurcharan Singh Public Witness-6, (2) Seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d prepared by Sl Bhag Chand Public Witness-13 and witnessed by Rur Singh Public Witness-5 and ASI Risal Singh Public Witness-8, and (3) statement of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4, who is said to have produced the said scooter and four documents, mentioned in Seizure Memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d. ( 14 ) IT is necessary, at this stage, to espy the strange circumstances in which the above-mentioned pieces of evidence were collected and used in the present case. Public Witness-4/d. ( 14 ) IT is necessary, at this stage, to espy the strange circumstances in which the above-mentioned pieces of evidence were collected and used in the present case. S. I. Bhag Chand (Public Witness-13) testified that he arrested accused Ravinder Kumar from Rewari in a case FIR No. 461/77. Ravinder made disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a, led the police party to Village Dharan, pointed out the house of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4, and got scooter No. USK-4690 recovered from SurajBhan, who also produced two receipts Ex. Public Witness-4/a and Ex. Public Witness-4/b, insurance certificate Ex. Public Witness-4/c along with one driving licence mentioned in seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d. ASI Gurcharan Singh Public Witness-6 and Sl Risal Singh Public Witness-8 also categorically deposed that on 17. 11. 77 they joined Sl Bhag Chand of Crime Branch in connection with investigation of the Case FIR No. 461/77. Moreover, it is expressly noted at the top of disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a and seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d, that the same were recorded in connection with FIR No. 461/77 dated 11. 8. 77 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code relating to P. S. Delhi Cantt. Thus, it is clearly borne out from the oral and documentary evidence on record that accused Ravi was arrested, disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a was recorded, the scooter and certain documents were recovered from Suraj Bhan Public Witness- 4 vide seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d, and various statements and documents were recorded by Sl Bhag Chand Public Witness-13 on 17. 11. 1977 in connection with the case FIR No. 461/77. Obviously, that was another case of theft, which was different from the case with which we are concerned i. e. FIR No. 8/77 dated 4. 1. 77 Ex. Public Witness-7/a, albeit of the same police station, namely, P. S. Delhi Cantt. ( 15 ) THERE is another intriguing aspect about the number and identity of persons who were involved in the investigation and were arrested by the said police party on 17. 11. 77. ASI Gurcharan Singh Public Witness-6 divulged in his cross-examination that one Hari Shankar was arrested before arresting accused Ravi. It is necessary to remember this name Hari Shankar as a reference to him shall be made later also for analysis and discussion on the disclosure statement Ex. 11. 77. ASI Gurcharan Singh Public Witness-6 divulged in his cross-examination that one Hari Shankar was arrested before arresting accused Ravi. It is necessary to remember this name Hari Shankar as a reference to him shall be made later also for analysis and discussion on the disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a. Next, Sl Risal Singh Public Witness-8 revealed involvement of another person described as "accused Naresh". He explained: "naresh accused is not challanged in this case". After deposing about movement of the police party from place to place, this witness categorically confirmed that Naresh remained with the police party throughout. Further, S. I. Bhag Chand Public Witness-13 conceded in his cross-examination that accused Ravi was arrested at the instance of the accused of case FIR No. 461/77. He also stated "the other accused in FIR No. 461/77 was under police remand". No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the evidence on record about the circumstances in which these persons were arrested, and the role played by them on (17. 11. 77) the fateful day. ( 16 ) NOW, in the light of this background, let us take up for consideration the earlier mentioned pieces of evidence one by one and examine the overall effect of the evidence on record. ( 17 ) THE disclosure statement of accused Ravi Ex. Public Witness-6/a is the first and most important piece of evidence in the chain of events leading to alleged recovery of the scooter Ex. P-1, which is said to be the stolen property. The statement is recorded in the following words: "ravi Kumar s/o Behari Lal r/o village Kanwali P. S. Khool Distt. Mahender Garh, the accused under police custody of his own accord and free will disclosed that he alongwith Kailash went to village Dharan and sold a scooter make Vespa to a person there. He stated that he could get the scooter recovered from there after pointing out the said place"here, four aspects need to be noted. Firstly, accused Ravi was stated to be resident of village Kanwali, P. S. Khool, Distt. Mahender Garh. The challan put up in Court gave the same particulars of the place of residence of both the accused Ravi and Kailash, whereas the statement of accused Ravi recorded at the time of trial under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , reveals that he is a resident of premises No. 6, a Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi. Mahender Garh. The challan put up in Court gave the same particulars of the place of residence of both the accused Ravi and Kailash, whereas the statement of accused Ravi recorded at the time of trial under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , reveals that he is a resident of premises No. 6, a Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi. Secondly, the disclosure statement implicates co-accused Kailash. This part of the statement in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be admissible in evidence against accused Kailash. Thirdly, the name and description of the person to whom the scooter is said to have been sold are not recorded, although Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 claimed that he and the accused were previously known to each other. Fourthly, it is important to note that the make of the scooter is stated to be vespa and no other particulars like the colour or registration number of the scooter were given. ( 18 ) EVEN otherwise, genuineness of the alleged disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness- 6/a attributed to accused Ravi is doubtful. ASI Gurcharan Singh P. W. 6, who attested this document as a witness, stated in his cross-examination, that one Hari Shankar had been arrested before the arrest of accused Ravi on the same day from village Kanwali. The disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a was recorded near a tubewell on the road before reaching Rewari. He could not tell the distance between the place where the disclosure statement was made and village Kanwali, But, he said categorically "it is more than 10 Kms. " He admitted that his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 17. 11. 77, and that the facts relating recording of the disclosure statement and the arrest of the accused had been stated, but, it was not recorded as to where the accused was arrested. Then, a suggestion was made to him that it was Hari Shankar who had stated in his disclosure statement that he, along with Kailash, had given a vespa scooter to a person in village Dharan. He denied the suggestion. He was confronted with portion A to A of Ex. DA, where the name of Hari Shankar was written and not Ravi Shankar. There is a note recorded in the deposition of this witness that the Additional Public Prosecutor produced and placed on record Ex. He denied the suggestion. He was confronted with portion A to A of Ex. DA, where the name of Hari Shankar was written and not Ravi Shankar. There is a note recorded in the deposition of this witness that the Additional Public Prosecutor produced and placed on record Ex. PA, which is carbon copy of the statement of ASI Gurcharan Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , where the name Ravi Shankar was found written in place of Hari Shankar. This, however, was brushed aside by the learned trial Court as "inadvertant mistake". In our opinion, it is not so. In the portion of his statement marked A to A in Ex. DA, ASI Gurcharan Singh had named Hari Shankar at two places. The relevant portion is reproduced below:- "the first accused Hari Shankar made a disclosure statement that he alongwith Kailash had gone to village Dharan and had given one Vespa Scooter to a person there. He stated that he could get the said scooter recovered after pointing out the said place. Therefore accused Hari Shankar of his own accord and free will disclosed that he alongwith Dr. Kailash had gone and had given the scooter who runs a radio shop at circular road Rewari. " (emphasis added) In Ex. PA, the name Ravi Shankar appears instead of Hari Shankar only at one place. Here too, it should be noted, Shankar is part of Hari s name and it is, obviously. misplaced with the name of accused Ravi. Then, at the second place, where the name is subsequently repeated, the name of accused Ravi is not to be found and the name Hari Shankar is still there. Thus, combined reading of Ex. PA and Ex. DA reveals that the said disclosure statement was really made by Hari Shanker and not by accused Ravi. This is no mistake. It is sufficient proof of blatant manipulation and substitution of the name of accused Ravi so as to implicate him in the case in place of Hari Shankar on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a. ( 19 ) SEIZURE memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d is the only document on record which gives both the Engine No. 03e- 605250864 and Chassis No. 03 C 604 253251 of the scooter at one place. But, here, these particulars have been shown in relation to a vespa scooter No. USK-4690. Public Witness-6/a. ( 19 ) SEIZURE memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d is the only document on record which gives both the Engine No. 03e- 605250864 and Chassis No. 03 C 604 253251 of the scooter at one place. But, here, these particulars have been shown in relation to a vespa scooter No. USK-4690. Out of the four documents, stated to be "papers of the scooter" and taken into possession, thefirst receipt Ex. Public Witness-4/a and the insurance certificate Ex. Public Witness-4/c mention registration No. USK-4690 of bajaj scooter. No other particulars of the scooter are given in any of the documents seized vide Ex. Public Witness-4/ D. Confusion and contradiction regarding the make and description of the scooter are apparent on the face of the material that was put together and incorporated in the Seizure Memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d. ( 20 ) THE seizure memo was prepared by Sl Bhag Chand Public Witness-13. It bears the signatures of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 and attesting witnesses Rur Singh Public Witness-5 and SI Risal Singh Public Witness-8. Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 stated that he handed over to the police "the said scooter, chassis number of which are written in memo". S. I. Bhag Chand P. W. 13 stated that he had noted down the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle in Memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d. But, there is no evidence available on record to show when and where the Engine number and Chassis number of the recovered scooter was checked and who checked it, before it was noted down in Ex. Public Witness-4/d. Rather, evidence of the attesting witnesses leads one to believe that nothing of the sort was done. Rur Singh Public Witness-5, stated that he did not know the make or number of the scooter. He admitted that his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. but he did not mention the engine number, chassis number and the registration number of the scooter. S. I. Risal Singh Public Witness-8 merely described the scooter which was recovered as vespa scooter No. USK-4690, and he is the only witness who identified the scooter Ex. P-1 in Court. ( 21 ) IN fact, it appears from the testimony of Public Witness-2 and Public Witness-11 that there were two scooters. One was registered in the name of S. K. Chakravarty at Delhi and the other in the name of one Dr. P-1 in Court. ( 21 ) IN fact, it appears from the testimony of Public Witness-2 and Public Witness-11 that there were two scooters. One was registered in the name of S. K. Chakravarty at Delhi and the other in the name of one Dr. Saranjit Singh at Dehradun, U. P. and that the latter was indeed a vespa bearing No. USK-4690. Mahesh Kumar Public Witness-2, clerk from the Office of the Regional Transport Authority, New Delhi stated that the engine number given in Seizure Memo (Ex. Public Witness-4/d) tallied with that of scooter No. DLJ-6266 registered in the name of S. K. Chakarvarty. Sl Jaipal Singh Public Witness-11 deposed that in the month of June, 1978, when he was handed over investigation of the case FIR No. 8/77, he went to Dehradun and obtained from the Registeration Authority an extract from the record (Mark A) which showed that it related to a vespa scooter, registered in the name of Dr. Saranjit Singh, bearing No. USK-4690. ( 22 ) THE Seizure Memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d narrates recovery of four documents related to the scooter. One of those documents was a driving licence bearing No. V-5423 ND in the name of V. N. Malhotra. The licence itself has not been produced. Attesting witness Rur Singh Public Witness-5 has not spoken a word about it. In his cross-examination, he only stated: "police had opened the dhukkan of the scooter". Risal Singh Public Witness- 8 also did not depose about recovery of the licence. Sl Bhag Chand Public Witness-13, in his examination-in-chief, made a very indefinite statement that Suraj Bhan had produced "one Driving Licence". The only evidence adduced on record in respect of the said driving licence is found in the testimony of Sl Puran Singh Public Witness-3. He explained that investigation of the case was handed over to him on 18. 7. 1978. He took steps to ascertain genuineness of the said driving licence V-5423 ND in the name of V. N. Malhotra, which had already been taken into possession by ASI Bhag Chand. What he came to know and what he did about it may be read in his own words: "on my verification I came to know that this licence was in the dickey of scooter which was stolen from Delhi Cantt. and case FIR 108/77 was registered of that scooter. What he came to know and what he did about it may be read in his own words: "on my verification I came to know that this licence was in the dickey of scooter which was stolen from Delhi Cantt. and case FIR 108/77 was registered of that scooter. That driving licence was attached with the concerned file of FIR 108/77". This gives a queer turn to the case. FIR No. 108/77 is yet another case (different from FIR No. 8/ 77 with which we are concerned ). The particulars, contents and even the subject matter of that FIR are not found mentioned anywhere on the record. But, it emerges very clearly from the statement of this witness that the particular driving licence, cited in seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d, was actually found in the dickey of another stolen scooter, that it was already in possession of ASI Bhag Chand Public Witness-13, and that Sl Puran Singh, after he came to know these facts on verification, attached the driving licence with the concerned file of FIR No. 108/77. This fully explains why the driving licence was not produced as a piece of evidence in the present case. At the same time, manipulation and mix-up of evidence collected in three different theft cases handled by Sl Bhag Chand Public Witness-13 stands exposed. In these mysterious circumstances, inclusion of the driving licence of V. N. Malhotra casts upon the entire recovery operation strong suspicion and, this by itself, is sufficient to destroy credibility of the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d. ( 23 ) THE last straw in the case of the prosecution is the convenient testimony of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4. His evidence has to be viewed in the light of the disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-6/a and seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d discussed above. Here, it is interesting to note that accused Kailash had apprised Suraj Bhan before entering into the transaction that the scooter belonged to his friend, but he brushed it aside and insisted upon accused Kailash describing the vehicle as "my Scooter" and executing the receipt Ex. Public Witness-4/a. He took possession of the scooter without making any enquiry about the owner and clear title of the scooter. He did not care to ask for or obtain the papers of registration, nor did he get any transfer papers executed in his own name. Public Witness-4/a. He took possession of the scooter without making any enquiry about the owner and clear title of the scooter. He did not care to ask for or obtain the papers of registration, nor did he get any transfer papers executed in his own name. These circumstances appear to be very unnatural. Therefore, we find his testimony also wholly unreliable. ( 24 ) THERE is no evidence on record to connect the allegedly recovered property with the stolen property nor about the mens rea necessary for proving the charge. The stolen property had been clearly described in the FIR No. 8/77 Ex. Public Witness-7/a as a bajaj scooter bearing registration No. DLJ-6266 of light grey (Near white) colour. As against this, the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-4/d and Sl Risal Singh Public Witness-8, produced to prove recovery of the scooter described it as a vespa scooter. Surprisingly, the scooter Ex. P-1 was put to only one witness Sl Risal Singh Public Witness-8, who identified it to be the recovered property. It was not even put to Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 for identification. There is no evidence at all on record to prove the basic ingredients of the charge that scooter Ex. P-1 was the stolen property and that the accused knew or had reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property belonging to Major S. K. Chakrarvarty, which was the subject matter of FIR No. 8/77 dated 4. 1. 77 Ex. Public Witness-7/a. Further, Major Chakravarty alone could have testified whether scooter Ex. P-1 was the one which belonged to him and was stolen. He has not been produced and examined as a witness inthe case. Thus, the best evidence for establishing identity of the recovered property and the stolen property was not produced. ( 25 ) IN the end, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State feebly suggested that the case may be remanded for recording evidence of Major Chakravarty. He pointed out that summons were issued to secure presence of Major Chakaravarty three times. Trial Court record shows that summons sent to him on the first two occasions could not be served as he had shifted from the given address. Third time, it was reported that he was posted on active duty and could not be relieved without prior notice of at least 45 days. Trial Court record shows that summons sent to him on the first two occasions could not be served as he had shifted from the given address. Third time, it was reported that he was posted on active duty and could not be relieved without prior notice of at least 45 days. Request made by the Public Prosecutor for further opportunity to produce him was declined and evidence of the prosecution was closed by an order made on 7. 1. 80. Ordinarily, where it appears that the prosecution had made an application for production of a material witness and for no fault of the prosecution the witness is not served, the irregularity may be cured in appeal by remand of the case. In the present case, however, we are not inclined to adopt this course for the reason that evidence of recovery of the property is wholly unconvincing. Moreover, remand of the case now after pendency of the appeal in this Court for 14 years would be highly unfair and unjust to all concerned. ( 26 ) IN view of the above, it appears that investigation in this case was mixed up with two other cases also involving theft of scooters, namely, FIR No. 108/77 and FIR No. 461/77 registered in P. S. Delhi Cantt. The vital pieces of evidence on record, particularly the disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness-4/d, the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness-6/a, the documents mentioned therein, and the testimony of Suraj Bhan Public Witness-4 are tainted, wholly unreliable, and worthless. ( 27 ) CONSEQUENTLY, acquittal of both the accused-respondents is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.