Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.999 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 6/95/ 42/99. confirming the judgment rendered, by the trial court dated 9.3.95 in GR Case No. 1678/92, trial No. 188/95. Revisionist was convicted under Section 414. IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year. 2. It has been submitted by the revisionist lawyer that only 3 witnesses have been examined and the IO was not examined and the seizure was prepared in absence of the revisionist. There was no report of theft regarding seized article which consisted of 23 bags of "DARA" meant for the Child Development Project of Amas block in the district of Gaya. 3. I find that 3 witnesses have been examined, out of them PWs 1 and 2 are so called seizure list witnesses and these witnesses admitted there signature on the seizure list, but they denied that they had made any statement before the police. So they have been declared hostile by the prosecution and in cross- examination by the latter they admitted to have witnessed the seizure of 23 bags of DARA from the mill of the revisionist. However. in cross-examination by the accused, they said that their signatures were obtained on the seizure list at Health Centre by the side of the mill and nothing was seized in their presence. However, the court relied on their statement in cross- examination by the prosecution that the seizure was made in their presence. However. I am of the opinion that when the witnesses made contradictory statements, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. 4. So far PW 3 is concerned he is the informant himself and he has admitted in cross-examination that he had no report of any theft of the seized article from the Child Development Project. He further stated that the register was maintained regarding the stock of article of Child Development Project. No register was produced in the trial Court to substantiate that there was any discrepancy in the stock nor there was any report of theft of the article by any of the officials of the project. As to who provided confidential information to the BDO (PW 3) has also not been mentioned in the evidence. The police officer who accompanied the BDO to the mill of the revisionist has also not been examined. As to who provided confidential information to the BDO (PW 3) has also not been mentioned in the evidence. The police officer who accompanied the BDO to the mill of the revisionist has also not been examined. The seized article was also not produced in the court, nor there was any explanation as to what happened to the seized article. Accused revisionist in his suggestion to PW 3 had denied the alleged seizure. Admittedly, seizure was made in absence of the accused after breaking open the locks of his Mill. PW 3 could not give any answer as to what he did the broken locks. 5. In the light of the above evidence on the record, seizure was not substantiated by sufficient and unimpeachable evidence. Moreover, it was not proved that the seized article was the article of theft reported from anywhere. Section 414, IPC penalises concealment of stolen article with the conscious knowledge that it is stolen article, but since theft of alleged seized article was not proved and the seizure itself was not proved in view of the evidence on record. I do not think the revisionist shall be liable for punishment under the aforesaid section. So the judgments of the two courts below appear to have been passed without proper application of judicial mind to the facts on record. I am. therefore. of the opinion that both the judgments are vitiated by illegality. 6. In the result, this application is allowed, and the judgments of the courts below are set aside. The revisionist shall stand acquitted.