Judgment ( 1. ) THIS Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 02. 05. 2003 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Appeal No. 57/02 confirming the judgment, finding and sentence dated 05. 03. 2002 passed by J. M. F. C. , Satna in Criminal Case No. 332/99, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 457 and 380 of I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further undergo R. I. for 1 month and R. I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 400/-in default to further undergo R. I. for 1 month respectively. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION case in short is that complainant Kuldeepak Oberoi on 06. 09. 1997 submitted a written application at City Kotwali, Satna wherein it was mentioned that his shop of motor parts named Ganga Automobiles is situate at Jagatdev Talab. On 24. 08. 1997 at about 9:00 p. m. he went to his house after closing the shop and on 25. 08. 1997 at 9:00 a. m. when he opened the shop found that the articles were spread. Two crown of GNA company used in TATA vehicles costing Rs. 7,000/-were not found. On the basis of this report the Crime No. 587/97 under Section 457, 380 of I. P. C. was registered. Map was prepared. The disclosure statement of the applicant was recorded. On its basis two crowns were seized from his house. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Satna. ( 3. ) THE applicant was charged under Section 457, 380 of I. P. C. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and the applicant also examined himself in defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court convicted him under Section 457, 380 of I. P. C. and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para no. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court the applicant preferred criminal appeal no. 57/2002 which was dismissed on 02. 05. 2003. After appreciating the evidence trial Court convicted him under Section 457, 380 of I. P. C. and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para no. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court the applicant preferred criminal appeal no. 57/2002 which was dismissed on 02. 05. 2003. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective which has resulted into great miscarriage of justice. The courts below have not seen that the complainant lodged F. I. R. with inordinate delay after 14 days and no reason for delay has been mentioned. The recording of memorandum on 08. 09. 1997 of the applicant at Ganga Automobile, Satna is also not true and the police has made the concocted story in this regard. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The identification of the stolen articles has not been done, therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the applicant deserves to be acquitted. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, Shri Ramesh Shukla, learned Dy. G. A. appearing on behalf of the respondent/state has supported the impugned judgment mainly contending that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. The applicant has been rightly convicted and sentenced, hence does not call for any interference. ( 6. ) THE main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the appellate court has committed any illegality in confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court under 457 and 380 of I. P. C. ? ( 7. ) THE incident is of the intervening night of 24. 08. 1997 and 25. 08. 1997 but the written report Ex. P-4 has been submitted on 06. 09. 1997. On the basis of which the F. I. R. (Ex. P-5) has been registered. Thus the F. I. R. is lodged after 14 days of the incident. ( 7. ) THE incident is of the intervening night of 24. 08. 1997 and 25. 08. 1997 but the written report Ex. P-4 has been submitted on 06. 09. 1997. On the basis of which the F. I. R. (Ex. P-5) has been registered. Thus the F. I. R. is lodged after 14 days of the incident. When complainant Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2) found that the lock of his shop was broken and theft has been committed in his shop then why he immediately did not lodge F. I. R. It goes to show that either the lock was not broken on that day or he was not aware of the theft of his articles on that day otherwise there was no any reason of delay in lodging the F. I. R. ( 8. ) THE evidence is discrepant on this point whether the lock was broken or not and whether the door was closed or opened. It appears that complainant Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2) is exaggerating his statement in this regard because no such fact is mentioned in report Ex. P/4 or in his police statement. Both the courts below have not considered the effect of lodging F. I. R. late. ( 9. ) THE prosecution evidence is also discrepant on the point that who used to keep the key after closing the shop. According to some witnesses, the key was kept by applicant whereas according to others the owner Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2) used to keep the key with him. ( 10. ) IT is manifestly clear that applicant was Chowkidar and there was no reason to keep the key of shop by him. It appears that these witnesses are giving such evidence so as to implicate the applicant in this theft case. ( 11. ) THERE is no evidence that somebody has seen this applicant taking away these articles. The entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are the memorandum statement (Ex. P-1) and seizure of the stolen article (Ex. P-2 ). ( 12. ) ON perusal of memorandum (Ex. P-1) it reveals that it was recorded at Ganga Automobiles, Satna whereas complainant Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2) has himself stated that he along with Vijay Kapoor (PW-1) and police had gone to village Dadhiya where applicant was found, therefore, there was no reason to record the statement of this applicant at Ganga Automobiles, Satna. ) ON perusal of memorandum (Ex. P-1) it reveals that it was recorded at Ganga Automobiles, Satna whereas complainant Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2) has himself stated that he along with Vijay Kapoor (PW-1) and police had gone to village Dadhiya where applicant was found, therefore, there was no reason to record the statement of this applicant at Ganga Automobiles, Satna. Dadhiya village is near about 14-15 kilometers away from Satna from where the stolen articles was seized from this applicant. These documents were prepared by S. I. A. P. Singh City Kotwali, Satna but he has not been examined by prosecution. Therefore, it is not clear whether the memorandum statement was recorded at village Dadhiya as the complainant says that the applicant met there or it was recorded at Ganga Automobiles, Satna. It is surprising to note that the police has not made the witness of seizure from the locality where the articles were seized. Both these witnesses are the employees of complainant Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW 2 ). The respected persons of the locality should be made the witnesses of seizure memorandum. It appears that the interested witnesses have been planted as the seizure witnesses. None of these witnesses have any idea regarding the particulars of the house of the applicant from where such articles were seized. They could not withstand the test of reliability in the cross examination. It goes to show that these witnesses have not gone at village Dadhiya and no seizure has been effected before them, therefore, the proceedings in this regard creates serious doubt. ( 13. ) NO identification of the seized articles has been made. The investigating officer has left this lacuna in this case. It is established principle of criminal law that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence then the circumstances be so connected as to form a complete chain and if any link is missing then no offence can be proved on such evidence. In this case link of identification of the stolen article is missing, therefore, the offence charged can not be proved. ( 14. ) IT is evident that all the prosecution witnesses are interested because they are servants of Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2 ). Thus there is no any independent witness to prove the case. In this case link of identification of the stolen article is missing, therefore, the offence charged can not be proved. ( 14. ) IT is evident that all the prosecution witnesses are interested because they are servants of Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2 ). Thus there is no any independent witness to prove the case. The defence of the applicant is that Kuldeepak Oberoi (PW-2) has not given the entire salary to him and when he demanded the same he was falsely implicated in this case and was removed from the service. The applicant examined himself in support of his defence. The defence of the applicant seems to be probable and plausible. ( 15. ) THUS, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant and both the courts below have committed illegality in finding the applicant guilty under Section 457 and 380 of i. P. C. Such finding is hereby set aside and the applicant deserves to be acquitted. ( 16. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this criminal revision succeeds and is allowed. The finding of guilt of applicant under Section 457 and 380 of I. P. C. is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the charge under Section 457 and 380 of I. P. C. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him as per law.