Judgment Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. 1. The above named appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-6-1993 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1986 whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. Exhibit-3 is the fard beyan which is the basis of prosecution case. According to it the informant P.W. 7 received information at 6.30 a.m. on 6-8-1983 that one person had gone Janta Watch and Company, Sonbarsa for selling. A Sanaha entry No. 90 dated 6-8-1983 was recorded. P.W. 7 along with S.I. M.P. Thakur (not examined) and A.S.I. G.P. Choudhary (not examined) proceeded for that place. As soon as they reached near the Janta Watch Company one person was noticed who tried to escape but he was caught. He disclosed himself as the appellant. In course of search of the appellant in presence of two witnesses one HMT Janta Watch of 17 jewels being No. 14041 with steel chain was recovered from the pocket of the appellant. A seizure list was prepared and a copy of which was given to the appellant. It was signed by the two wit-nesses who was present, there. No satisfactory reply about the watch was given by the appellant. On inquiry proprietor of Janta Watch Company informed that the accused has desired to sell watch for Rs. 100/-. But he did not purchase because he suspected that it could be stolen property. On the basis of fard beyan (Ext. 3) a formal FIR (Ext.- 2) was registered vide Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 64 dated 6-8-1983 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 412, I.P.C. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 412, I.P.C. The appellant pleaded innocence and preferred to face trial. 3. The defence of the appellant was of false implication and that the alleged watch was not seized from his possession. He Is being implicated on account of enmity. 4. In order to prove the case altogether 8 prosecution witnesses were examined. Out of 8 witnesses P.Ws. 5 and 8 are one person who has been examined twice. He is a formal witness. He Is being implicated on account of enmity. 4. In order to prove the case altogether 8 prosecution witnesses were examined. Out of 8 witnesses P.Ws. 5 and 8 are one person who has been examined twice. He is a formal witness. P.W. 1 Abdul Qayum and Sachchidanand Choudhary are the seizure list witnesses. Both of them have not supported seizure and that no seizure was made from any persons. So both of them were declared hostile. P.W. 3 Nawal Kishore Prasad was a formal witness who has brought a wrist watch allegedly from Malkhana. P.Ws. 5 and 8 has proved Exhibits 2 to 5, Ext. 2/1 and Ext. 5/1. These witnesses have not recognised the appellant and only he knew about the occurrence. Two witnesses are on the point of occurrence. They are P.W. 2 Mahendra Rai whose watch was said to have been snatched in course of dacoity which led to Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 36 of 1983 in connection with a dacoity in his house in the night of 19/20th of April, 1983. P.W. 6 Chandeshwar Rai is the cousin of P.W. 2. These two witnesses have been brought by the prosecution for the purpose of identification of the watch. P.W. 2 has stated that in course of dacoity criminals have taken away a watch from his house and the watch was put on TIP in Sonbarsa Block before the B.D.O. This witness identified that watch in course of the T.I.P. The seized watch has been marked as material Ext. 1. He stated that witness Chandeshwar Rai (P.W. 6) has also identified the watch in his presence. 5. On the point of identification the evidence of P.W. 6 also is that he has identified the watch on TIP but there are some vital contradictions in the evidence of two witnesses namely, P.Ws. 2 and 6. P.W. 2 has stated that at the time of T.I.P. 9 watches were placed for identification (P.W. 2 para 6). P.W. 6 in paragraph 3 has stated that only one watch was put on T.I.P. The definite case of the P.W. 2 is that the test identification parade was done at one time when the P.Ws. 2 and 6 have identified but the stark contradiction on the manner of identification creates doubt with regard to prosecution version of putting watches on TIP. 2 and 6 have identified but the stark contradiction on the manner of identification creates doubt with regard to prosecution version of putting watches on TIP. It cannot be said that a person will see more watches In the TIP and another person who has also taken part in the same T.I.P. will see only one watch. Therefore, it creates doubt with regard to version of the prosecution that the said watch was identified at the Test Identification Parade. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the T.I.P. chart has not been produced so it cannot be considered. Not only this the person who has conducted T.I.P. has also not been examined. The I.O. has also not been examined. So recovery or seizure has not been proved. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad the learned APP submitted that the watch was being used by P.W. 2 for a long time and he could have easily recognised the same in the T.I.P. For proving the charge under Section 411, I.P.C. it must be proved that the seized article was stolen, the accused received or retain stolen property dishonestly. The informant has got himself examined as P.W. 7. He in his evidence has stated that the owner of the shop has also not even suspected that the alleged watch which was being given by the appellant was stolen property. 7. I have considered the entire Evidences brought on the record. All the ingredients for proving charge under Section 411, I.P.C. are completely lacking in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The alleged seizure of watch has not been proved in absence of non-production of T.I.P. chart. Even the Magistrate holding the T.I.P. has not been examined. Even with regard to the manner of identification the P.Ws. 2 and 6 are contradictory to each other. There is no evidence that the seized article was stolen or the appellant has knowledge that he was retaining it knowing that it was a stolen article. 8. In view of the above facts and evidence against the appellant, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its charge against the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.