Order.- The petitioner (A-3) was convicted of the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Haveri. The charge against the petitioner was that on the night of 28th November, 1958 at Hattimuttur in Haveri Taluk, he along with four others committed house: breaking by night by entering into the house of Basawa (P.W.1) with the intention of committing theft and after entering into the house committed theft of gold articles and cash, etc., worth Rs. 15,000. He was further charged in the alternative along with accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 that they dishonestly received the ornaments which were the subject-matter of theft in the house of Basavva knowing them to be stolen jewels. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was mainly circumstantial. Accepting the prosecution case as true, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 except A-5 for the offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code and acquitted A-5 of all the charges. The petitioner and A-1, 2 and 4 were also acquitted of the charges under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, against the conviction and sentence unsuccessfully. This Revision Petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against him. The case for the prosecution may be shortly stated thus: Basavva, a resident of Hattimattur village, had kept in her house jewels worth about Rs. 15,000 belonging to her and also to the deity of Dyanavva. Some days prior to 28th November, 1958, it appears that a crow entered into her house. She thought that it was a bad omen and therefore she left that house and began to live in an adjoining house; but she continued to keep the jewels in the same place where she had kept before. On the morning of 29th November, 1958 she found that the back door of her house opened. She entered into the house and found that all the jewels and some cash missing from the cup-board. Two days after theft Basavva gave her complaint (Exhibit 9) to the Police Patil (P.W. 8) mentioning therein the details of the jewels and their approximate weight. The petitioner who is a distant relative of Basavva is a resident of the same village. Two days after theft Basavva gave her complaint (Exhibit 9) to the Police Patil (P.W. 8) mentioning therein the details of the jewels and their approximate weight. The petitioner who is a distant relative of Basavva is a resident of the same village. On suspicion his house was searched by the Police on 3rd December, 1958, but nothing incriminating was found. The effort made by the Investigating Officer to detect the crime was unsuccessful. Therefore he reported the matter to the Magistrate stating that the crime could not be detected. The report of the Investigating Officer was accepted on 7th February, 1959. On the next day P.W. 1 the Circle Inspector of Police, Haveri, arrested the petitioner. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner gave information regarding the jewels stolen from the house of Basavva and in pursuance of that information he took the Circle Inspector of Police to his field and there took out the jewels from underneath the ground. The jewels that were produced by the petitioner, according to the prosecution, were these: (1) A pair of gold Wankis weighing 23 tolas and 14 annas; (2) A pair of gold todas, weighing 7½tolas; (3) A pair of gold Patli, weighing 13 tolas; (4) A pair of gold bangles, weighing 7½tolas; (5) One gold Poche weighing 5½ tolas’, (6) Another gold Poche, weighing 3 tolas and 4 annas; and (7) A gold chain weighing 3 tolas, 14 annas. These articles were subsequently identified by Basavva (P.W. 1), Shekhargouda (P.W. 4), Iswarappa (P.W. 6), Somangouda (P.W. 8) and another Somangouda (P.W. 9), as belonging to Basavva and that they were the jewels stolen on the night of 28th November, 1958 during the course of investigation. After investigation at the time of filing the charge-sheet, it appears that these articles were sent:o the Court along with the charge-sheet; but the Court appears to have returned the articles to the person who had taken them stating that the jewels required to be tested by a goldsmith before they were taken. The Police Officer who had taken these jewels appears to have brought them back and appears to have kept them in the guardroom of the Police Station in a sealed-box. When the jewels were required by the Court for purposes of identification, the police informed the Court that the jewels were missing from the guardroom. The Police Officer who had taken these jewels appears to have brought them back and appears to have kept them in the guardroom of the Police Station in a sealed-box. When the jewels were required by the Court for purposes of identification, the police informed the Court that the jewels were missing from the guardroom. At the trial, the evidence of Basavva (P.W. 1), Shekhargouda (P.W. 4), Iswarappa (P.W. 6), Somangouda (P.W. 8) and another Somangouda (P.W. 9) was to the effect that certain jewels were shown to them by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation and at that time they identified the jewels as belonging to Basavva. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) who arrested the petitioner deposed that the petitioner gave information in the presence of 2 panchas stating that he had kept the jewels in his field. He further stated that thereafter the petitioner took him to his field and there near a bush he produced seven jewels, the description of which was noted down in the mahazar (Exhibit P-20-A) and those articles were subsequently identified by Basawa and others. Relying upon this evidence, the Courts below have convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code. There is no direct evidence as to the crime and the whole evidence is circumstantial. To deduce an inference of guilt from such evidence, the incriminating facts found must be such as to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has strongly relied on the discovery of seven jewels in consequence of the information given by the petitioner. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the evidence relating to discovery of jewels was inadmissible and no reliance could be placed on that evidence to convict the petitioner for the offence Under section 411, Indian Penal Code. To appreciate this contention, the circumstances that led to the discovery of jewels have to be considered. The house of the petitioner, as stated earlier, was searched on suspicion on 3rd December, 1958 three or four days after the alleged theft. No jewel which had been stolen from the house of Basavva was found in his house. To appreciate this contention, the circumstances that led to the discovery of jewels have to be considered. The house of the petitioner, as stated earlier, was searched on suspicion on 3rd December, 1958 three or four days after the alleged theft. No jewel which had been stolen from the house of Basavva was found in his house. It is in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that all his efforts to detect the crime for nearly 2 months were unsuccessful. Therefore, he submitted a report to the Court stating that the crime could not be detected. This was on 7th February, 1959. On the next day i.e., 8th February, 1959, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner. He has not given any reason as to what made him to arrest the petitioner after he had submitted a report to the Magistrate stating that the crime could not be detected. There is evidence in this case that all was not well between the petitioner and P.Ws. 1,4, and 9. It may be that at their instance the petitioner was arrested on 8th February, 1959. It was the case of the prosecution that immediately after the arrest, the petitioner gave information which led to the discovery of the seven jewels on the same day. It will be seen from the evidence of the panchayatdar, Ramappa (P.W. 5) that the Police Inspector (P.W. 11) summoned him and two others and told them that the petitioner wanted to give information regarding the theft in the house of Basavva and that he would show some articles and also would produce them, he asked them to question the petitioner. The Police Inspector does not state as to how he came to know that the petitioner would give that information. The petitioner was arrested at 11 or 11-30 a.m. and in the presence of the panchayatdars the petitioner stated that he had kept the jewels in his field. Even before that it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 11 that the Inspector of Police had known the information that the petitioner gave in the presence of P.W. 5. If the Inspector of Police know the information before and if subsequently the petitioner gave information in the presence of panchayatdars and in consequence of that information the articles were seized, it cannot be stated that on the information given by the petitioner the articles were recovered. If the Inspector of Police know the information before and if subsequently the petitioner gave information in the presence of panchayatdars and in consequence of that information the articles were seized, it cannot be stated that on the information given by the petitioner the articles were recovered. The testimony relating to the discovery of the articles in consequence of the information given by the accused casts considerable doubt and it is not safe to act upon that testimony. In Public Prosecutor v. Bheemunipati Subba Reddi1, it has been held that such evidence should not be accepted. In that case, what happened was that certain articles like wood chopper, axe and axe-handle were alleged to have been discovered in consequence of the information given by the accused. The facts relating to the discovery as recited in that case were that the Circle Inspector sent for the panchayatdars and in their presence elicited information from the accused as to the place where those articles could be found. This, according to the learned Judges, meant that the Circle Inspector knew beforehand precisely what the accused was going to say. Holding that the statement given by the accused was wholly inadmissible in evidence, they commented on the procedure adopted and made certain observations which are instructive and informing. The observations are to the following effect: “The Circle Inspector knew beforehand precisely what the respondent was going to say. His procuring the presence of P.Ws. 15 and 16 (Panchayatdars) and 3 others who signed the mahazar Ex.C-2 was a mere farce. It is impossible to say that anything was discovered in consequence of the statement made by the respondent to the Inspector in the presence of P.Ws. 15 and 16. We have had occasion to deprecate this manner of manufacturing evidence before and we shall if necessary continue to do so. Section 20, Evidence Act is not designed by the Legislature to encourage proceedings of this sort. Section 27 as we have frequently held, is quite simple: it says that where any fact is deposed to as having been discovered in consequence of information given by a person in custody accused of an offence, so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, whether it amounts to a confession or whether it does not. Apparently, the Circle Inspector (P.W. 18), like so many of his fellow officers was afraid that if he went into the Court and said that he had received such and such information from the accused the Court would not believe him. He therefore found it necessary to have more trustworthy persons than himself present as witnesses when the information should be disclosed. This is a regrettable attitude on the part of any Police Officer and much more on the part of an officer of the grade of Circle Inspector. The Circle Inspector ought to expect to be believed when he gives evidence on oath. We think that the evidence regarding the statements made by the respondent and embodied in the panchayatnama (Ex.C-2) and spoken to by P.Ws. 15, 16 and 18 was wholly inadmissible.” In the present case, the Circle Inspector knew the information beforehand and by summoning two witnesses he appears to have thought that if the petitioner gave information in their presence, that information would be the first information which led to the discovery of the articles. The discovery of the articles made on such information is wholly inadmissible. The Courts below have relied upon the statements of P.Ws. 1, 4, 6, 8 and 9 that these witnesses identified the seven jewels shown by the Inspector of Police after they were recovered and they identified them as belonging to Basavva. These witnesses could not identify the jewels in Court as they had disappeared mysteriously when they were in the custody of the police. Their statements that they identified the jewels during the course of investigation, cannot be acted upon, as their statements come within the ban of section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. In Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and others v. State of Bombay1, it was pointed out that: “The process of identification by the identifying witnesses involves the statement by the identifying witnesses that the particular properties identified were the subject-matter of the offence or the persons identified were concerned in the offence. This statement may be express or implied. In Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and others v. State of Bombay1, it was pointed out that: “The process of identification by the identifying witnesses involves the statement by the identifying witnesses that the particular properties identified were the subject-matter of the offence or the persons identified were concerned in the offence. This statement may be express or implied. The identifier may point out by his finger or touch the property or the person identified, may either nor his head or give his assent in answer to a question addressed to him in that behalf or may make signs or gestures which are tantamount to saying that the particular property identified was the subject-matter of the offence or the person identified was concerned in the offence. All these statements express or implied including the signs and gestures would amount to a communication of the fact of identification by the identifier to another person. Such communications are tantamount to statements made by the identifiers to a police officer in the course of investigation and come within the ban of S. 162, Criminal Procedure Code. The physical fact of identification has thus no separate existence apart from the statement involved in the very process of identification and in so far as a police officer seeks to prove that fact of such identification such evidence of his would attract the operation of section 162 and would be inadmissible in evidence, the only exception being the evidence sought to be given by the identifier himself in regard to his mental act of identification which he would be entitled to give by way of corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial.” The witnesses had no occasion to identify the jewels said to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner in Court. Their statements that they identified some jewels during the course of investigation, would not help the prosecution to prove that the jewels that were stolen from the house of Basavva were recovered at the instance of the petitioner or that they were identified by the witnesses. For these reasons, I hold that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence Under section 411, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. I, accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and acquit him. The bail-bond stands cancelled. This petition is, therefore, allowed. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.