JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is filed by the three convicted accused persons Shyama, Sardariya and Kalu. 2. According to the prosecution story, PW 1 Nana Chamar, r/o Vill. Ummedpura under Police Station, Kapasan was robbed of his two ear-rings on 23.11.85 at 10 AM by the three persons, who were not known to the said Nana. On 26.11.85, Nana lodged on oral F.I.R. in respect of the said incident and a case under Section 392 of the IPC was registered. The three accused-persons were arrested and a challan under Section 394/34 of the IPC was filed in the court of the learned Munsif and Judi. Magistrate, Kapasan. All the three were charged for the offence under Section 394 of the IPC and they pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution examined PW 1 Nana, PW. 2 Narain Singh, PW 3 Madho, PW 4 Nathu, PW 5 Asha Ram, PW 6 Mohan and PW 7 Ram Chandra. The statements of the accused-persons under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. were then recorded. No defence evidence was led. The learned Additional Chief Additional Magistrate, Kapasan heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 28.9.99. The three accused-persons were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 of the IPC and each one was awarded simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. No provision was made as to what shall happen, if the amount of fine was not deposited. Feeling aggrieved, the three accused-persons preferred an appeal, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Chittorgarh and was dismissed in its entirety on 24.2.2003. Feeling aggrieved. this revision petition has been filed by the three accused-persons. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the learned trial court. 5. I find that both the courts-below have acted on an arbitrary manner and have found the petitioners guilty without application of mind. As pointed out earlier, the culprits were not known to complainant PW 1 Nana. The FIR was lodged with a delay of three days, wherein, it was mentioned that the three unknown persons committed the offence. 5. I find that both the courts-below have acted on an arbitrary manner and have found the petitioners guilty without application of mind. As pointed out earlier, the culprits were not known to complainant PW 1 Nana. The FIR was lodged with a delay of three days, wherein, it was mentioned that the three unknown persons committed the offence. In the FIR, it is stated that the complainant enquired from PW 6 Mohan and he replied that the three persons were 'Kanjors' by caste and were resident of village "Bansen". The FIR does not say that the names of the accused-persons were known to Mohan. Further, it is stated that after the accused-persons were able to make their escape good on bi-cycle, the complainant raised a hue and cry, hearing which, certain persons of "Kumbhakhera" arrived and they disclosed the names including the parentage of the culprits. Strangely enough, these persons of "Kumbhakhera" have not been named initially but later, it is mentioned that they were PW 2 Narain Singh, PW 5 Asha Ram and PW 4 Nathu. In this way, Nathu, Asha Ram and Narain Singh were the persons who identified the culprits. PW 2 Narain Singh, PW 4 Nathu and PW 5 Asha Ram, all denied that they identified anybody. Similar is the situation of Madho, who was denied any knowledge in the matter. PW 2 Narain Singh, PW 3 Madho, PW 4 Nathu and PW 5 Asha Ram have all been declared hostile witnesses, PW 6 Mohan is not a hostile witness. However, he has stated that none of the accused-persons was seen by him and any mention in respect of them in his statement Ex.P/7 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is false. It is pertinent to note that after the arrest, no test identification took place. PW 1 Nana was examined in the court on 10.3.92 and identification of the accused-persons in the court is of no consequence. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State has tried to support the judgments of the two lower courts and has argued that the two ear-rings were correctly identified by Nana before PW 7 Ram Chandra, the then Chairman of the Municipality, Kapasan. I find that the testimony of PW 7 Ramchandra does not help the prosecution at all. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State has tried to support the judgments of the two lower courts and has argued that the two ear-rings were correctly identified by Nana before PW 7 Ram Chandra, the then Chairman of the Municipality, Kapasan. I find that the testimony of PW 7 Ramchandra does not help the prosecution at all. He has specifically stated that the material was brought by the police in an unsealed condition and needless to say that when the recovered material is not sealed property on the spot, the subsequent identification loses all its value. No witness has stated that at the time of recovery the ear-rings were actually sealed. 7. As a matter of fact, there Is no evidence to the effect that the material was recovered at the instance of any of the petitioners. The investigating officer, who allegedly recovered the material, has not been examined as a witness. The Motbir witnesses of the recovery memo, have also not been examined. The recovery memo concerned has not been tendered in evidence. It, thus, remains unestablished that the material was recovered at the instance of any of the petitioners. 8. Further, I find that the FIR, which allegedly was lodged on 26.11.85 has also not been tendered In evidence. It, thus, is clear that it was a case of no evidence so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is strange that both the courts-below have acted in such an irresponsible manner.Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The judgments delivered by the lower courts are set aside. The. petitioners shall stand acquitted of the charge. The petitioners are in jail and they shall be released forthwith unless they are required in some other case.Revision Allowed. *******