Judgment :- This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 012. 2004, made in C.A.No.188 of 2004, on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.51 of 1996, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi. .2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows : .Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, Forest Ranger, Pollachi range, law was set in motion against the revision petitioners / A1 and A2. As per the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.1, after inspecting Aanaimalai sandal wood godown, on 012. 1994 at about 10 p.m, gave his usual instructions to the forest guards / watchmen and went to his residence and that the door of the godown, where sandal woods were kept in was under lock and key. On 012. 1994, at about 4 a.m, the forest guards / watchmen of the godown Duraiyan and Kaliyappan, P.W.2 found that the lock was broke open and thereby sandal woods were stolen, a burning 200 watts bulb was also found missing. Immediately, it was informed to the Forest Ranger, P.W.1, who came to the scene of occurrence, inspected the godown and the premises and found few human foot prints nearby the godown and some of the stored sandal wood pieces were also found dislocated and also found tyre marking of a lorry or tempo, nearby the road, and upto the end, the said human foot prints were found. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, Ex.P.9, FIR was registered and the Investigating Officer, P.W.14 rushed to the said scene of occurrence on the said date and inspected the forest godown and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.10, in the presence of witnesses. Sketch, Ex.P.11 was also prepared by him. 3. Then the Divisional Forest Officer, P.W.8 along with P.W.6 and others had intercepted the vehicles plying on the road. While intercepting, they found a sunny scooter proceeding at the said place from Aanaimalai towards Pollachi in a suspicious manner. Sketch, Ex.P.11 was also prepared by him. 3. Then the Divisional Forest Officer, P.W.8 along with P.W.6 and others had intercepted the vehicles plying on the road. While intercepting, they found a sunny scooter proceeding at the said place from Aanaimalai towards Pollachi in a suspicious manner. On seeing the same, the Forest Ranger and others stopped the vehicle, but the persons proceeding on the vehicle left the vehicle and took their heals, however, one of them, the first petitioner herein was caught hold of and on the confession statement given by the said person, the first petition herein, a white bag containing 15 Kgs of sandal wood loaded in the sunny scooter was recovered, under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. 4. As per the prosecution case, while the first petitioner was intercepted, he informed that the sandal wood pieces were taken to Pattatchi sandal wood oil factory in Kerala State. On 13.01.1995, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kandasamy, P.W.8 along with Forest Rangers, Nagarajan, P.W.1, Angusamy, P.W.9, inspected the said Elapalli Essential Oil Industries in Kerala state in the presence of one Muneer, P.W.10 and found 5 tins of sandal wood oil, which could have been prepared out of 120.5 Kgs of sandal wood chips, apart from the same, 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips were also recovered there, on the confession statement given by the first revision petitioner and samples each 200 ml were taken out of the seized sandal wood oil and sent for chemical examination. It has been established that the case properties were seized under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. The confession statement given by the first revision petitioner was leading to the recovery of material objects. Based on the complaint and the materials produced before the trial court, charges were framed under Section 457 (B) and 380 IPC. On the side of the prosecution 16 witnesses were examined, 29 Exhibits were marked, apart from 3 items of material objects. .5. Based on the complaint and the materials produced before the trial court, charges were framed under Section 457 (B) and 380 IPC. On the side of the prosecution 16 witnesses were examined, 29 Exhibits were marked, apart from 3 items of material objects. .5. According to the learned Government Advocate, the complaint given by P.W.1, and the evidence of P.W.6, Forest Ranger, P.W.8, Divisional Forest Officer, who seized the sandal wood from the accused and subsequent recovery of sandal wood oil and sandal wood chips from the sandal wood oil factory in Kerala, based on the confession statement given by the first petitioner herein, would clearly establish the complicity of the first revision petitioner in the alleged offence. The evidence of the Supervisor in the Elapalli Essential Oil Industries, an independent witness is also supporting the prosecution case, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.13, Forest Officer. Pursuant to the confession statement of the first petitioner, huge quantity of unauthorized sandal wood oil and sandal wood chips kept in the said factory were recovered. 6. Mr. S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would vehemently argued that though there is a concurrent finding by the courts below, there is no evidence to substantiate the finding of the courts below. According to him, no offence punishable under Section 457 (B) and 380 IPC has been established by the prosecution against the petitioners and according to him, there is no evidence available on record for convicting the second petitioner herein. 7. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, to attract Section 457 (B) there should be offence made out for house trespass or house breaking and similarly committing theft in any building or dwelling house should have been made out to attract Section 380 IPC. Here in the instant case, there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to establish that the petitioners have committed offence of lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night, in order to commit offence and that there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution for convicting the revision petitioners under Section 380 IPC for committing theft in dwelling house. 8. Per contra, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) contended that after the occurrence, that had taken place on 012. 8. Per contra, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) contended that after the occurrence, that had taken place on 012. 1994 during night hours, while the vehicles were intercepted, the first petitioner and another who were proceeding in sunny scooter from Aanaimalai to Pollachi was found in a suspicious manner and that on seeing the forest officers, they left the scooter and took their heals, but the first petitioner was caught hold of and he gave confession statement. .9. Pursuant to the confession statement given by the first petitioner, 15 Kgs of sandal wood pieces loaded in the scooter in a white bag was recovered under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses and the same has been established by the prosecution. The admissible portion of the confession statement leading to the recovery of the said material object has also been proved by the prosecution. Subsequently, huge quantity of 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips and 5 sandal wood oil tins were seized from Elapalli Essential Oil Industries, sandal wood oil factory in Kerala, only on the confession statement given by the first petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution has established the guilt against the first petitioner, in order to punish him under Section 411 IPC. As far as the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the first petitioner, material objects have been recovered and the concurrent finding of the courts below is supported by evidence. The said finding cannot be construed as perverse, but the courts below could have convicted the first revision petitioner under Section 411 IPC, since 15 Kgs of sandal wood pieces and also 5 tins of sandal wood oil and 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips have been recovered, pursuant to the confession statement given by the first petitioner. 10. Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel contended that there is no evidence to show that the sandal wood, sandal wood chips used for preparing sandal wood oils were stolen from the godown belongs to the forest department of Aanaimalai Division. The learned senior counsel further contended that the authorities have not produced their stock register, in order to establish the theft of sandal wood from the godown. 11. The learned senior counsel further contended that the authorities have not produced their stock register, in order to establish the theft of sandal wood from the godown. 11. Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate contended that before entries were made in the stock register, sandal woods were being kept in the godown room, under lock and key, at that stage by break opening the lock, the theft has been committed during night hours and therefore, the non-production of the stock register would no way affect the prosecution case. 12. In the instance case, the prosecution has established that 15 Kgs of sandal wood was recovered on the confession statement given by the first petitioner herein. Similarly, 5 tins of sandal wood oil, which could have been prepared from and out of 120.5 Kgs of sandal wood chips and also 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips were seized, based on the confession statement given by the first petitioner. Admittedly, he had no valid license to deal with the bulk quantity of sandal wood. The evidence of P.W.10, Muneer, Manager of Elapalli Essential Oil Industries, Kerala would also support the prosecution case. It is not in dispute that the sandal wood chips and the sandal wood oil seized from the aforesaid sandal wood oil factory had been kept in an illegal and unauthorized manner and subsequently, they were sold, as per the orders of the Court. 13. From the aforesaid circumstances, the offence under Section 411 IPC has been established against the first petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. As per the evidence of P.W.16, on the confession statement given by the second petitioner / A2, 45 Kgs of sandal woods were recovered. Ex.P.23 is said to be the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the second revision petitioner. In order to establish the confession statement and the recovery of the alleged 45 Kgs of sandal wood, pursuant to the confession statement, there is no corroborative evidence, except the evidence of P.W.16, Inspector of Police. Hence, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, the prosecution has not established any offence against the second petitioner either under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC or under Section 411 IPC. 14. Hence, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, the prosecution has not established any offence against the second petitioner either under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC or under Section 411 IPC. 14. I am of the considered view that here in this case, the prosecution has established guilt against the first revision petitioner / A1, punishable under Section 411 IPC and not under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below has to be modified accordingly. 15. In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed, the first revision petitioner / A1 is convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- , instead of the conviction and sentence, imposed by the court below under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC. 116. As far as it relates to the second revision petitioner / A2 is concerned, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence, imposed on him by the court below is set aside. 117. As the first revision petitioner / A1 is on bail, the trial court is directed to secure the first revision petitioner / A1 to under go the remaining period of sentence. The fine amount, if any paid by the second revision petitioner / A2 shall be refunded to him forthwith. 118. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.