Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Court at Chas, in Sessions Trial No. 208/ 85, whereby and whereunder, he convicted the appellant under Sec. 412, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 six years. 2. The accused-appellant was charged under Sec. 412, I.P.C. on the ground that four tyres belonging to Devendra Singh alias Chiku (P.W. 8), which were looted property of the alleged dacoity which took place in his shop, were recovered from his possession, inasmuch, as one tyre was recovered from his possession when he had gone to sell that tyre to Jeetan Choudhary (P.W. 9) and he had disclosed to him as also to P.W. 8 that he is keeping three more tyres in his house and the matter was informed to the police, who came at the shop of Jeetan Choudhary and the tyre brought by the appellant Muneshwar Yadav was produced by Jeetan Choudhary before the I.O., who prepared production-cunl-seizure list (Exhibit-4/2) and arrested the appellant, who confessed before the police that he is keeping three more tyres in his house and in presence of the witnesses three tyres were recovered from the house of the accused which were kept concealed in the courtyard beneath the heap of straw and on his pointing out, the police recovered those three tyres. After completing the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sec. 412, I.P.C. on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session along with other accused against whom the police had submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 395/412, I.P.C. 3. The trial Judge framed charge against the appellant under Sec. 412, I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and his defence is the complete denial of the alleged occurrence. 4. It may be pointed out that other ten accused who faced trial for committing offence under Sec. 395,I.P.C. were acquitted of the charge and on the same set of evidence, the appellant was convicted in the manner stated above. 5. 4. It may be pointed out that other ten accused who faced trial for committing offence under Sec. 395,I.P.C. were acquitted of the charge and on the same set of evidence, the appellant was convicted in the manner stated above. 5. The point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution had established the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt or not and whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge against the appellant can be sustained or not. 6. So far the charge framed against the appellant is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 8 Devendra Singh @ Chiku, P.W. 9 Jeetan Choudhary, P.W. 24 Shashi Bhusan Prasad Ajad, who was the Circle Officer and had conducted the T.I.P. of the seized articles, P.W. 28 Harcharanjeet Pal Singh who is the I.O., P.W. 31 Kasfur Rahman, P.W. 21 Chandradeep Mahato, who is one of the witnesses, of the T.I.P. Chart are relevant. I will discuss their evidence to find out that whether the prosecution has brought home the charge against the appellant or not. So far the other witnesses are concerned, they have been examined by the prosecution relating to the charges framed against the other accused persons who were acquitted by the trial Judge. Therefore, I need not discuss their evidence in the instant appeal. 7. First of all, I will discuss the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of the alleged recovery of the four tyres. According to the prosecution version, the appellant went to Siwan Tyres owned by P.W. 9 (Jeetan Choudhary) and proposed to him to sell one tyre which he had brought with him, whereupon, Jeetan Choudhary sent written information to the police (Marked-X for identification) in which it was stated that Muneshwar Yadav has brought one tyre of car to sell and disclosed that he is keeping three more tyres in his house which he can bring and since it is suspected that the tyres are the looted properties of the Sikh riots, so he is giving information. On this information, the police came into action and reached the shop of Jeetan Choudhary where a tyre was produced by Jeetan Choudhary before the I.O., who prepared a production list in presence of the Jeetan Choudhary and Munshi Yadav, who are the witnesses of the production list (Exhibit 4/2). On this information, the police came into action and reached the shop of Jeetan Choudhary where a tyre was produced by Jeetan Choudhary before the I.O., who prepared a production list in presence of the Jeetan Choudhary and Munshi Yadav, who are the witnesses of the production list (Exhibit 4/2). Therefore, Jeetan Choudhary and Munshi Yadav before whom the I.O. had seized one tyre of car are the most important witnesses. I find that Munshi Yadav has not been examined by the prosecution without any explanation. So far as Jeetan Choudhary is concerned, he turned volte face and deposed that the police called him at the police station and obtained his signature on a blank paper and he had not made any statement before the police. He has denied that he had sent any written information to the police on 20.4.85 stating therein that Muneshwar Yadav had come to his shop to sell a tyre and had disclosed to him that he is keeping three more tyres in his house which he will bring and he suspected those tyres to be loot ad properties in the Sikh communal riots. He has also denied that the police had seized any tyre in his presence and had prepared the seizure-list on which he signed as witness but he has proved his signature (Exhibit-1) for which he stated earlier that the police had obtained his signature on a blank paper. This witness had candidly denied that three tyres were recovered from the house of accused Muneshwar Yadav, which were hidden in a heap of straw and the police had prepared the seizure-list in his presence in respect of those three tyres although he proved his signature (Exhibit 1/1) on the seizure list (Exhibit-4/1). It would, therefore, appear that the most important witness on the point of seizure of tyres from the possession of the accused has not supported the prosecution version and has turned volte face. It would also appear that the second witness, namely, Munshi Yadav on the point of seizure of tyres from the possession of the accused has not been examined to support the prosecution version. It would also appear that the second witness, namely, Munshi Yadav on the point of seizure of tyres from the possession of the accused has not been examined to support the prosecution version. It may be pointed out at this place that according to the seizure-list (Exhibit-4/1), three tyres are said to have been recovered from the house of Muneshwar Paswan s/o Palakdhari Yadav and an attempt has been made to insert the word Yadav on the seizure-list which fact has been admitted by P.W. 28 Harcharanjeet Pal Singh (the I.O.), who admitted that some body has tried to insert the word Yadavin a different pen which throws volumes of doubt on the genuineness of the seizure-list (Exhibit-4/2). 8. So far P.W. 8 Devender Signh @ Chiku is concerned, he has clearly admitted that he had not gone to the house of accused Muneshwar Yadav when search and seizure of three tyres were made. He also admitted that he recognized Muneshwar Yadav from before and he was not present when loot and arson was being committed in his shop. But, this witness has stated that accused Jeetan Choudhary came to his shop at about 8-9 a.m. when he rang the police who came within half hour. The accused left his shop and when the police came, he was present in Siwan Tyres belonging to Jeetan Choudhary and the accused was caught in Siwan Tyres. He also claimed to have informed the police at about 10-11 a.m. Therefore, it is manifest from the evidence of P.W. 8 that he had not seen the recovery of one tyre from the possession of the accused since the accused had already left his shop and when the police came, he was present in the shop of P.W. 9 Jeetan Choudhary and one tyre was admittedly recovered from the shop of Jeetan Choudhary as per the production list (Exhibit 4/2). Therefore, it is manifest that P.W. 8 did not see the alleged seizure of four tyres, in question, and the seizure-list (Exhibit 4/1 and 4/2) also does not indicate that tyres were searched or seized in his presence. Therefore, it is manifest that P.W. 8 did not see the alleged seizure of four tyres, in question, and the seizure-list (Exhibit 4/1 and 4/2) also does not indicate that tyres were searched or seized in his presence. The next important aspect in this case is that P.W. 8 claimed that four tyres recovered from the house of the accused belonged to his shop which were looted away in the alleged commission of dacoity committed by the rioters and he claimed to have identified those four tyres at the T.I.P. which was conducted by P.W. 24. P.W. 8 has stated in his examination-in-chief (para 1) that he had identified four tyres at the T.I.P. which was held in the Thana premises. In cross-examination, P.W. 8 has stated that tyres were of Fire Stone/Modi Stone Co. and invoice Nos. were mentioned on those tyres. This statement of P.W. 8 does not find corroboration from the seizure-list, inasmuch, as there is nothing in the production list (Exhibit 4/2) or the seizure-list (Exhibit 4/1) to show that any invoice number was mentioned therein. P.W. 8 has further stated in cross-examination that cut of the four tyres, one tyre was of Fiat car and remaining three were of Standard Herald. But, the seizure-list (Exhibit 4/1 and 4/2) does not show this fact that the tyres seized by the police were actually of fiat and Standard Harald car. At this state, I may point out that P.W. 8 has admitted in his cross-examination that the name of his shop was Popular Motors in which motor parts used to be sold. But, he added to say that tyres also used to be sold in that shop. In the same breath, he admits that he had another shop in the name and style of Tyres and Tyres in the name of his wife in which only tyres used to be sold. Both the shops were situated at the same place. The question arises that that whether there was any possibility of selling tyres in the shop of Popular Motors when P.W. 8 had another shop in the name and style of Tyres and Tyres which was exclusively a shop of tyre. Evidence has come that the shop, namely, Tyres and Tyres had also been burnt to ashes by the rioters. The question arises that that whether there was any possibility of selling tyres in the shop of Popular Motors when P.W. 8 had another shop in the name and style of Tyres and Tyres which was exclusively a shop of tyre. Evidence has come that the shop, namely, Tyres and Tyres had also been burnt to ashes by the rioters. As such, it is very much doubtful that the tyres seized in the case were looted away by the rioters from the Popular Motors which was a shop meant for selling motor parts and the statement made by P.W. 8 that tyres also used to be sold in that shop looks quite doubtful. It is for this reason that P.W. 8 could not give the exact number of tyres available in his shop, namely, Popular Motors nor any cheat of paper has been brought on the record by the prosecution to show that P.W. 8 also used to sell tyres in the Popular Motors. However, the alleged tyres seized from the possession of the accused-appellant were put at the T.I.P. conducted by P.W. 24 Shashi Bhusan Pd. Ajad, who was posted as Circle Officer at Chas. P.W. 24 has proved the T.I.P. chart (Exhibit-3 and 3/1) and he has also proved that part o f the endorsement which is marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. P.W. 24 has admitted that T.I.P. chart was not prepared by him and he also admitted that the witnesses were called by the police and the T.I.P. was held in open premises of the police station. He could not say about the particulars of the tyres which were mixed with the disputed tyres meant for identification. This witness could not say as to who had prepared the T.I.P. chart and admitted that no case number or any mark of identification or any slip was pasted on the disputed tyres. He further admitted that he had not written as to which witness had identified which articles and column Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the T.I.P. chart is in different pen and ink, whereas, column No, 8 has been written by different person and is in different ink which shows that different column of the T.I.P. chart were filled up by different persons in different ink and writing and certainly those had not been written by P.W. 24 which he had admitted. This witness has also admitted that he had not signed anywhere in column Nos. 4 to 8 and the name of the identifying witnesses or persons, who had taken part in the T.I.P. had not been mentioned in T.I.P. chart. He, however, admitted that a slip was pasted on the T.I.P. Chart on which the witnesses had signed but he could not explain that under what circumstances the slip was pasted and who had actually pasted the slip, for which, there is no explanation in the T.I.P. chart (Exhibit-3). He, however, admitted that he cannot say as to under what circumstances the T.I.P. Chart was prepared in carbon process and who had obtained his signature on the carbon copy. It is, therefore, manifest from the evidence of P.W. 24 that he had not conducted the T.I.P. in accordance with law nor had prepared the T.I.P. chart as required under the law and it is established from his evidence that interpolations were made in the T.I.P. chart by some one whom he could not name nor he could justify about the interpolitions so made in the T.I.P. Chart. It is also clear from his evidence that actually the police had prepared the T.I.P. chart on which he put his signature. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued before me that no value much less any importance can be attached on the T.I.P. chart prepared by P.W. 24 in view of the aforesaid anomalies. I am also of the view that no reliance can be placed on the T.I.P. chart (Exhibit-3) in view of the statement made by P.W. 24 as also in view of the interpolation and irregularity committed by P.W. 24 in conducting the T.I.P. and the possibility cannot be ruled out that P.W. 24 only observed the formality by putting his signature on the T.I.P. chart which was prepared by the police from before and, as a matter of fact, no T.I.P. was held or conducted by him. It appears from the T.I.P. chart that it was conducted in presence of the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 21 Chandradeep Mahato, who is none else but the Government employee and is the driver of P.W. 24. It appears from the T.I.P. chart that it was conducted in presence of the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 21 Chandradeep Mahato, who is none else but the Government employee and is the driver of P.W. 24. He has also proved his signature on the T.I.P. chart as Exhibit 1/4 on the carbon copy of the T.I.P. chart but he could not say as to whether the tyres mixed with the disputed tyres for the purpose of identification, were big or small, new or old or that whether it was of truck or of car. So, the statement made by this witness is quite vague and it appears that he obliged his master by affixing his signature on the T.I.P. chart and that is why he could not give any detail about the T.I.P. chart. It appears from the T.I.P. chart (Exhibit-3) that the name of another witness, namely, Awadh Sharan Sharma has been inserted in the column of the witnesses which is in different ink which further throws volumes of doubt, inasmuch, as all other writings are in carbon process, whereas, the name of Awadh Sharan Sharma has been written in ink which suggests that his name was subsequently included in the column of the witnesses. However, the prosecution withheld this witness as he was not examined and on account of his non-examination, adverse inference can be drawn that he was not a real witness to the alleged T.I.P. and the prosecution purposely did not examine him as a witness. On the basis of the evidence of P.W. 24 and 21, it can be very well said that the alleged story of the prosecution that the seized tyres were identified at the T.I.P. by the witnesses looks highly doubtful. 10. The next important witness is P.W. 28 Harcharan Jeet Pal Singh, who is the I.O. of this case, who had gone to make investigation by getting a tip of information from Jeetan Choudhary, which was registered in the station diary being No. 629 dated 20.4.85. He has made a fantastic statement to the effect that he along with the S.I.K, Rahman had gone to the shop of Muneshwar Yadav (appellant) and had made search which is never the case of the prosecution. He has made a fantastic statement to the effect that he along with the S.I.K, Rahman had gone to the shop of Muneshwar Yadav (appellant) and had made search which is never the case of the prosecution. He further states that accused Muneshwar Yadav started fleeing away but he was caught and he confessed that three more tyres have been kept by him in his house which he seized from his house in presence of the witnesses, namely, Jeetan Choudhary and Munshi Yadav and prepared the seizure-list (Exhibit 4/1). I have already stated above that P.W. 9 Jeetan Choudhary turned volte face, whereas, Munshi Yadav was not examined as witness. Hence, the statement made by the I.O. does not find corroboration from, the seizure list witnesses. This witness had admitted that accused Muneshwar Yadav had also put his signature on the seizure-list. In cross-examination (para 35) he has admitted that by seeing the signature of Muneshwar Yadav on the seizure-list, it can be said that his signature was obtained on blank paper and the seizure-list was prepared. Therefore, the above statement made by none else than the I.O. of this case goes to show the falsity of the prosecution version regarding the alleged seizure of tyres in question. The I.O. has admitted that the tyres seized in the case are available in the open market and there is no restriction on the sale of such tyres and he also admitted that claimant Devendra Singh alias Chiku had not produced any invoice or any other paper to establish his ownership in respect of the seized tyres and only on his verbal statement it was accepted that the tyres belonged to him. This witness then admits that several tyres which were seized in connection of other cases were kept in the Thana premises which were mixed with the disputed tyres of this case and the T.I.P. was held. He, however, did not give the details of those tyres which were mixed with the tyres seized in the case so that it may be inferred that the tyres seized in this case were actually mixed up with the similar tyres which was highly essential before the seized tyres could be placed at the T.I. P. for identification. As such, the evidence of the I.O. also lends support to the illegality committed in conducting the T.I.P. of the tyres seized in this case. As such, the evidence of the I.O. also lends support to the illegality committed in conducting the T.I.P. of the tyres seized in this case. To my utter surprise, I find that the I.O. could not give, the details about the house situated in the close vicinity of the house of the accused and he admitted in the cross-examination that he did not mention this fact in the case diary. From the seizure-list (Exhibit-4, and 4/2), it does not appear that what was the boundary of the house of the accused-appellant from where the tyres, in question, were allegedly seized nor the I.O. has stated in his evidence about the boundary of the place of occurrence from where the tyres were seized. 11. P.W. 31 Kasfur Rahman, who had also accompanied P.W. 28 while making the search and seizure in the house of the accused-appellant, could not say about the houses situated in the boundary of the house of the accused-appellant nor he could say that who were present in the house of the accused when the search was being conducted. He could not give any detail whatsoever relating to the house of the accused. He could not even remember that whether Jeetan Choudhary was present at the time of search or not or that P.W. 8 Devendra Singh alias Chiku was called there or not. He admitted that he did not sign on the seizure-list and he could not give any details about the tyres seized from the house of the accused-appellant. It would, therefore, appear that the evidence of this witness instead of helping the prosecution goes against the prosecution. 12. On comparison of the evidence of the witnesses including the I.O., I find that it is full of contradictions, omissions, interpolations and irregularities. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued before me that the appellant is an employee of Bokaro Steel Limited, who has been falsely implicated by the police and on the very face of it, the prosecution story looks improbable, inasmuch, as no prudent man will ever believe that the accused will go to sell the tyres in the shop of P.W. 8 and propose him to sell the tyres or confess about the keeping of three more tyres knowing fully well that he was a victim of Sikh riots and his shops were looted or gutted in arson committed by the rioters. I find much force in the aforesaid submission which looks convincing in view of the discrepancy occurring in the evidence led by the prosecution as discussed above. 14. Regard being had to all the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials available on the record, I am of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Court below was not justified in convicting the appellant for the alleged offence. As such, the impugned order/judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Court below are set aside and the appellant is held not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he is acquitted of the same. The appellant, who is on bail, is also discharged from the liabilities of the bail-bond. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed.