JUDGMENT - Smt. K.K. BAAM, J.:---The applicant/accused No. 1 has filed this criminal revision application challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 35/99, by which the appeal filed by applicant/accused No. 1 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts pertaining to the cause of action against the accused No. 1 may be narrated as under:--- It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused No. 1 alongwith the other accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were charged for having committed theft at St. Alex Waddo, Tilamol, in the house of Smt. Sabina Fernandes by breaking open the latch of the main door and committed theft of T.V., Video and other electronic goods, gold ornaments, cosmetic items, etc. all worth Rs. 1,45,450/- and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 454 and 380, read with section 34 I.P.C. 3. The charge was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined about 25 witnesses. The accused had denied the fact that they had committed the offence of theft. According to the prosecution, the case of the accused rests mainly on circumstantial evidence by which they have been able to bring the guilt home to the accused and the accused have been sentenced by the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 30 days. 4. The trial Court has, on the basis of circumstantial evidence found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced them, which sentence has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Against this order of the Appellate Court, the applicant/accused No. 1 has filed this revision application. 5. Mr. Lawande, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State, has urged before the Court that so far as this revision application is concerned, the High Court is entitled to interfere only in case there is gross miscarriage of justice and on that count reappreciate the evidence. For that purpose, reliance has been placed on the ruling cited in (State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri)1, 1999 Cri.L.J. 1443, para 5. For that purpose, reliance has been placed on the ruling cited in (State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri)1, 1999 Cri.L.J. 1443, para 5. Taking support of this judgment it is vehemently urged on behalf of the respondent that only if there is total perversity in the judgment of the Lower Court, the High Court can interfere and it is urged on behalf of the respondent that concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court do not call for any interfere. Reliance has been placed upon the observations to the effect that the jurisdiction of the High Court is one of supervisory jurisdiction for correcting miscarriage of justice, but the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of the Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, so far as this revision application is concerned, in the light of this ruling the question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence has been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal and where the applicant/accused No. 1 herein has brought to the notice of this Court any glaring feature in prosecution evidence which would tantamount to miscarriage of justice so far as the accused No. 1 as concerned. 6. The evidence produced by the prosecution is circumstantial evidence and the Appellate Court has taken into consideration seven circumstances to support the conviction of the applicant/accused No. 1, by the trial Court. The first two circumstances taken into consideration would not connect the applicant/accused No. 1 with the crime, but would support the case of the prosecution that the theft had taken place in the house of Smt. Sabina Fernandes and unknown persons had gained entry into the house and several articles owned by Smt. Sabina Fernandes existing in that house were found missing on the same day. These two, circumstances deal with the incident. These two, circumstances deal with the incident. The question arises for consideration as to whether the applicant/accused No. 1 can be said to have been connected with this offence, for which reliance has been placed on the other circumstances. 7. The circumstance on which reliance is placed is the use of the Maruti van bearing Registration No. GA-02-A-8163 in the crime and connection of applicant/accused No. 1 with the same. So far as this circumstance is concerned, except for the fact that this van was seen passing by at 3 p.m., does not in any way lend support to the case of the prosecution. Further, no doubt, the van was seized from the possession of the applicant/accused No. 1 when he returned from Belgaum and possession was taken on 6th July, 1997, but the same would not be a circumstance which would support the case of the prosecution that the said van was used for the commission of the crime. At the time when the panchanama was made of the van and search was taken of the van and personal search of accused No. 1 was conducted, the panchanama does not record that any article which was connected with the offence was recovered from them as what was recovered was an R.C. book. What was recovered from the person of applicant/accused No. 1 was a Timex wristwatch, black coloured, a leather wallet containing cash of Rs. 1,800/- and a gold bangle and so far as this gold bangle is concerned, the same belonged to the applicant/accused No. 1. Therefore, so far as this circumstances is concerned, the same fails to establish any nexus between the Maruti van and the offence of theft having been committed on 30th June, 1997. 8. The fourth circumstance which they has been established according to the prosecution, is the disclosure by the applicant/accused No. 1 of the place where accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were found and the attachment of incriminating articles from the same room, wherein accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were residing. So far as this circumstance is concerned, the discovery of accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 at the instance of the applicant/accused No. 1 is not a piece of evidence which can be admissible. No doubt articles were recovered from the house of accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were residing. So far as this circumstance is concerned, the discovery of accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 at the instance of the applicant/accused No. 1 is not a piece of evidence which can be admissible. No doubt articles were recovered from the house of accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 weapons used for commission of theft have been recovered from the house of accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, but this circumstance does not prove beyond reasonable doubt neither can it be said to be a part of the chain of circumstances which would establish the guilt of the applicant/accused No. 1. 9. Further, the most important aspect which is required to be taken into consideration is that the articles that were seized were not sealed under a panchanama. They were handed over to the complainant as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate. These articles were produced by the complainant herself at the time when evidence was led. There was no seal on these articles to show that the very same articles had been produced. No doubt a lady's wristwatch of make "Westor" and a perfume bottle of the make "Prophecy" have been attached under a panchanama from the house of the applicant/accused No. 1 and day and night ray-ban glasses have been produced by the wife of applicant/accused No. 1. However, day and night ray-ban glasses were produced at the Police Station, the articles though recovered from the applicant, not having been sealed and returned to the complainant though under judicial orders, credence cannot be given to the recovery or the identification made by the complainant at the time she gave evidence, in the absence of identifying marks and any seal on the articles. 10. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the applicant that the complainant has not been able to specify in her evidence as to what is the particular feature or mark to support her case that the watch that was recovered and the perfume bottle belonged to her. 10. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the applicant that the complainant has not been able to specify in her evidence as to what is the particular feature or mark to support her case that the watch that was recovered and the perfume bottle belonged to her. However, in the absence of any such identification, in view of the fact that the articles were not sealed, the articles were handed over to the complainant, no doubt as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate, which in ordinary circumstances should not have been done, as normally articles which are connected with an offence are required to be kept in a sealed packet, which is required to be produced before the Court, the seal is to be opened in the presence of the Court and thereafter, the same is to be identified. This procedure not having been complied with, the recovery of the two articles cannot foist the guilt on the accused. So far as these circumstances are concerned, it has been vehemently urged on behalf of the prosecution that the totality of these circumstances taken into consideration, completes the chain of events to support the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused No. 1 had committed the offence. However, in the light of my discussion, coupled with the fact that proper procedure was not followed during the course of investigation, with regard to the articles recovered under panchanama, there is gross miscarriage of justice, as the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the applicant/accused No. 1 was concerned with the offence. 11. As regards the charge under section 34 I.P.C. is concerned, the circumstance which has led the Appellate Court and the trial Court to convict the accused No. 1 is that the articles which were subject matter of the F.I.R. and mentioned in the F.I.R. have been found at the house of the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. This circumstance does not establish the fact that there was a prior meeting of the mind or that there was a common intention on the part of accused Nos. 1 to 5 to have committed the offence. Another fact which is required to be borne in mind is that the articles seized were not sealed pending trial. This circumstance does not establish the fact that there was a prior meeting of the mind or that there was a common intention on the part of accused Nos. 1 to 5 to have committed the offence. Another fact which is required to be borne in mind is that the articles seized were not sealed pending trial. They were returned to the complainant who produced the same at the time of trial. As procedure/formalities were not complied with, seizure of articles is of no value and cannot be considered as reliable piece of evidence to the first charge under section 34 I.P.C. to convict the appellant/accused No. 1. 12. Hence, so far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, the same has failed to establish the guilt of the applicant/accused No. 1. The circumstances on which reliance is placed to convict the applicant have resulted in gross miscarriage of justice as taking into consideration the totality of circumstances does not prove the offence against the accused. Hence the applicant is entitled to an acquittal. 13. The prosecution has not proved the offence against the applicant/accused No. 1, who is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 14. The revision application is allowed. The order dated 5th September, 2000 is set aside. The applicant/accused No. 1 is acquitted. Bail bond stand cancelled. Revision application allowed. -----