JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J. - Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Shobe. 2. Learned Advocate Shri M. Sonak, who was appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme, to argue this revision on behalf of the petitioner took me through the evidence of witnesses on record, pointed out various discrepancies and submitted that the prosecution case is inherently improbable and unbelievable; that the recovery cannot be believed or at least suffers from grave doubt and that the petitioner should be acquitted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Shobe admitted that there are some discrepancies in distances and timings, but he strenuously pleaded that the orders of the two courts below should not be interfered with since the stolen goods have been recovered from the petitioner and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the said recovery. 4. The whole controversy in this revision centers around recovery of stolen articles soon after the theft from the possession of the accused. In case the recovery is believed, the conviction cannot be interfered with. I am also conscious of the fact that sitting in revision. I would not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below, but after going through the evidence on record. I am in total agreement with the learned Advocate Shri M. Sonak that the recovery in question is inherently improbable and unbelievable. 5. The prosecution case is that the house in question where the theft took place was occupied by Shekar Govekar, P.W.3 who has stated that 10-11-1994 he left the house at about 7.00 a.m. after locking the house and returned at 9.45 p.m. He has further state d that he found that the latch of the door had been removed, but he could not open the door since it was latched from inside. He went to Pilerne and informed his brother Akshay Govekar P.W.1 who came along with him to the house. Then they found that the rear door of the house was opened and a number of items including Dyanora portable Black and White TV., Remy mixer, one pressure cooker, Usha sewing machine and other articles were missing. They went and lodged the F.I.R. with the Police. Then they found that the rear door of the house was opened and a number of items including Dyanora portable Black and White TV., Remy mixer, one pressure cooker, Usha sewing machine and other articles were missing. They went and lodged the F.I.R. with the Police. 'The said F.I.R. was registered at 1.10 a.m. According to Head Constable P.WA the complainant Akshay Govekar had come to the Police Station at about 1.00 a.m. The prosecution case further is that after the F.I.R. was lodged with the Police, the Police along with Akshay Govekar P.W.1, Shekar Govekar P.W.3, came to the house in question. The panchanama of the scene of offence was started at 1.30 a.m. and it was concluded at 2.00 p.m. It is in prosecution evidence that P.W.4 caught the accused near the house itself while he was carrying the stolen articles wrapped in a bed-sheet. 6. Admittedly Akshay Govekar had come to the Police Station at 1.00 a.m. and the F.I.R. Exh. P.W.1/8 which is typed was registered at 1.10 a.m. It is further pertinent to note that the charge-sheet column No.1 shows that the accused was arrested at 1.40 a.m. i.e. even before the panchanama was completed in this case. There is also discrepancy as to the distance from which the accused was caught. But one thing is certain is that he was caught in the close vicinity of the house in question. The theft admittedly took place prior to 9.45 p.m. and it does not sound to reason that a professional criminal like the accused who has previous conviction for theft would hang around the scene of offence after committing the offence to be caught by the Police. The panchanama Exh. P.W.2/ 13 shows that the accused was caught from one godown, but this godown theory was abandoned during the course of evidence. Admittedly the Police had come to the scene of offence around 1.30 a.m. and I find it difficult to believe that the accused would continue to hang around the scene of offence to be trapped by the Police. Pancha P.W. 2 of the crucial recovery is cousin of complainant P.W.1 and his brother P.W.3 and he cannot be said to be an independent person. Pancha P.W. 2 of the crucial recovery is cousin of complainant P.W.1 and his brother P.W.3 and he cannot be said to be an independent person. The case which solely rests on recovery, in my opinion, is extremely doubtful and the accused namely the petitioner must get benefit of the said doubt since I find that the recovery is inherently improbable, unrealistic and unbelievable. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Judge and confirmed by the Appellate Court are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted and shall be set at l1berty in case he is not required in any other matter. 8. The muddamal property which was duly identified by the complainant and his brother shall be returned to P.W.3 Shekar Govekar, in case the same are not yet returned since no claim in respect of the same has been put up by the petitioner. Revision allowed.