Judgment : This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bobbili by judgment dated 26.02.2003 in C.C. No.282 of 1996 acquitted the respondents 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 of the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 are brothers. A-1 is a licensed stamp vendor of Sitanagaram. He was conducting sale of stamps in a bunk abutting compound wall of Sub-Registrar’s office, Bobbili. A-3 and A-4 are alleged to be close associates of A-1. It is alleged that on 27.11.1996 after closing the transactions, sale proceeds of the stamps to the tune of Rs.43,247/-was secured in cash chest of the Sub-Registrar’s office, Bobbili and it was kept in steel almirah in the record room as 28.01.1996 happened to be a Sunday which is a holiday. It is alleged that on 29.01.1996 at about 6.30 A.M when P.W-2 who is sweeper of that office went to the office premises for sweeping the same, she found main door in open condition without lock and reported the same to P.W-1 who is senior assistant in that office and that P.W-1 rushed to the office along with attender and found main door as well as door of record room in open condition without any locks and also found steel almirah meddled and opened and that when he checked the almirah he found cash chest containing Rs.43,247/-missing from the shelf and that when he verified stamps kept in almirah with the help of staff, he found stealing of N.J.stamps worth Rs.6,68,500/-, special adhesive stamps worth Rs.4,44,000/-, Court fees labels worth Rs.51,440/-and A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund stamps worth Rs.11,520/-, total worth being Rs.11,75,460/-. It is further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of investigation, Inspector of Police, Bobbili arrested A-1 at his residence on 09.06.1996 at 9.00 A.M in the presence of mediators and that in pursuance of his confessional statement, A-1 produced cash of Rs.35,000/-and N.J. stamps worth Rs.1,57,410/-(M.Os 1 to 11) which were seized under the cover of mediators’ report and that the Inspector of Police also seized stock and sales registers (M.Os 42 to 44) maintained by A-1 for his stamp vending business under the cover of mediators’ report and that A-1 lead the police and mediators to a spot behind Gopala Krishna Jute mill, Bobbili and on pointing out the place by A-1, Inspector of Police seized cash chest along with soaked indent forms after retrieving the same from waters through a swimmer and that the Inspector of Police along with mediators proceeded to Chintalavalasa village to the house of parents-in-law of A-2 on 09.06.1996 at 5.30 P.M. and that on questioning, A-2 produced stolen stamps worth Rs.4,84,618/-(M.Os 12 to 27) and that Inspector of Police arrested A-2 and seized the said stamp papers under the cover of mediators’ report and that A-1 also lead the police party and the mediators to Gayatri Finance, Bobbili at 8.00 P.M. on the same day, where Rs.20,000/-being sale proceeds of the stamps was seized under the cover of mediators’ report. It is further alleged that on 12.06.1996 the police obtained police custody of A-1 through Court and that on 13.06.1996 at 9.00 A.M. Inspector of Police seized cash of Rs.8,000/-from P.W-6 under the cover of mediators’ report, as the amount represented sale proceeds of stolen stamps, which amount was paid to her towards repayment of loan. It is further alleged that when A-3 surrendered before the Magistrate, police custody of A-3 was obtained by the investigating officer and that in pursuance of confession of A-3, Inspector of police seized cash of Rs.5,000/-and N.J. stamps worth Rs.8,000/-(M.O-35) under the cover of mediators’ report and that A-4 was arrested on 07.12.1997 and that in pursuance of his confessional statement he led the police party and mediators to his temporary accommodation at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam after he was taken to police custody from the Magistrate and that cash of Rs.2,000/-and stamps worth Rs.1,900/-(M.O-37) were recovered at his instance under the cover of mediators’ report. 2) The lower Court framed charges against A-1 to A-4 under Section 411 I.P.C. Plea of A-1 to A-4 was one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found A-1 to A-4 not guilty of the charges. 3) It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has let in voluminous evidence of P.Ws 1 to 32 and Exs.P-1 to P-58 and M.Os 1 to 44 and proved not only theft of cash chest with cash and also stamps from Sub-Registrar’s office, Bobbili and also recovery of huge stolen properties in specie from A-1 to A-4 and that in spite of it, the lower Court erred in finding A-1 to A-4 not guilty of the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents’ counsel that the lower Court rightly acquitted A-1 to A-4 as the prosecution failed to prove theft in question and also failed to prove M.Os 1 to 41 as properties which were stolen from Sub-Registrar’s office, Bobbili and that apart from failure of the prosecution to prove theft and stolen property, the prosecution also failed to prove recovery of the properties from the accused as some of the mediators turned hostile to the prosecution. It is contended for the respondents that the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal of A-1 to A-4 after thorough discussion of the material on record. It is further contended by the respondents’ counsel placing reliance on Trimbak V. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1954(SC) 39 = 1954 CrLJ-335)of the Supreme Court that the place wherefrom the police are stated to have seized M.O-41 iron cash chest box is a place which was acceptable to one and all and that therefore no reliance can be placed on such recovery by the police. 4) The respondents’ counsel also placed reliance on Mahabir Sao alias Mahadeo Sao V. The State of Bihar (1972)1 Supreme Court Cases 505)of the Supreme Court in support of the respondents’ contention. The Supreme Court disbelieved the prosecution case and recorded acquittal of the accused therein on the ground that what were stolen in that case were galvanised iron pipes whereas the police recovered from possession of the accused therein two boiler pipes. The Supreme Court observed that boiler pipes are entirely different from galvanised iron pipes. The Supreme Court disbelieved the prosecution case and recorded acquittal of the accused therein on the ground that what were stolen in that case were galvanised iron pipes whereas the police recovered from possession of the accused therein two boiler pipes. The Supreme Court observed that boiler pipes are entirely different from galvanised iron pipes. In that case, the prosecution could not prove what was recovered from possession of the accused was the stolen property of galvanised iron pipes. 5) In Chandmal V. State of Rajasthan (1976)1 Supreme Court Cases 621),the Supreme Court observed: “24. It is elementary that there can be no offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property unless the property which is alleged to be the subject of such receiving, answers the description of “stolen property” given in Section 410, Penal Code. Only such property possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or extortion or criminal misappropriation or other offences allied to them as mentioned in Section 410, falls within the definition of “stolen property”.” From the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the respondents’ counsel that in order to find a person guilty under Section 411 I.P.C, the prosecution has to establish that what was said to have been recovered from possession of the accused was stolen property as defined under Section 410 I.P.C and that in the absence of proof that the property said to have been recovered from the accused was stolen property as defined under Section 410 I.P.C, no conviction can be recorded under Section 411 I.P.C against the accused. 6) In the case on hand, the lower Court mainly based its conclusion on non-production of stock register and sales registers of Sub-Registrar’s office, Bobbili where theft was said to have been committed. It is commented by the respondents’ counsel that in the absence of proof of the Sub-Registrar’s office having custody of various stamps worth Rs.11,75,460/-, it cannot be said that there was theft of stamps to that extent from that office. It is contended by the respondents’ counsel that in the absence of proof of identity of the alleged stolen property by disclosing serial number or other numbers on the stamps, it cannot be concluded that what were said to have been seized from A-1 to A-4 were part of stolen property in this case. It is contended by the respondents’ counsel that in the absence of proof of identity of the alleged stolen property by disclosing serial number or other numbers on the stamps, it cannot be concluded that what were said to have been seized from A-1 to A-4 were part of stolen property in this case. 7) Factum of theft in Sub-registrar’s office, Bobbili, it was first noticed by P.W-2, who was working as sweeper in that office. When she went to the office at about 6.30 A.M. for cleaning/sweeping the premisis, she found doors of that office broke open. Immediately she informed the same to P.W-1 by going to his house. P.W-1 was working as Senior Assistant in that office. During absence of Sub-Registrar, P.W-1 was in-charge of that office. P.W-2 secured one attender by name Thota Mallikharjuna Rao and went to the office and found main gate doors in open condition and bolts of the record room were in broke open condition. He also found iron safe in open condition and stamps which were placed in the shelf were stolen away. He noticed that the almirah was opened with duplicate keys. After intimating the same to the District Registrar, Vizianagaram who came over to Bobbili and verified the same, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-9 report to the police. Ex.P-9 contains statement/particulars of stamps which were stolen in that office. P.W-30 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili Police Station who received Ex.P-9 report from P.W-1 and registered the same as case in Crime No.37/1996 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C and issued Ex.P-54 F.I.R. Immediately he went to scene of the offence in Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bobbili and observed the same in the presence of mediators including P.W-19 under the cover of Ex.P-55 scene observation report. He also prepared Ex.P-56 rough sketch of the scene. He got scene of the offence photographed by P.W-20. Exs.P-34 to P-37 are photographs and Exs.P-38 to P-41 are corresponding negatives showing condition of scene of the offence at the time of its observation by P.W-30. The above evidence let in by the prosecution undoubtedly proved factum of theft in the Sub-Registrar’s Office and noticing of the same on morning of 29.01.1996. 8) It is evidence of P.W-1 that the culprits committed theft of non-judicial stamps, Court Fee impressed stamps, special adhesive stamps and advocates welfare fund stamps. The above evidence let in by the prosecution undoubtedly proved factum of theft in the Sub-Registrar’s Office and noticing of the same on morning of 29.01.1996. 8) It is evidence of P.W-1 that the culprits committed theft of non-judicial stamps, Court Fee impressed stamps, special adhesive stamps and advocates welfare fund stamps. He says that the stock available in the office on the date of incident was worth Rs.13,39,380/-and that on the date of incident, they sold stamps worth Rs.40,587/-and that there was cash of Rs.43,247/-and it was kept in cash chest which was also stolen away. He says that they verified the register and stamps in the office and found stamps worth Rs.11,75,460/-were stolen away. According to P.W-1’s report Ex.P-9, break-up of stamps which were stolen away consisted of non-judicial stamps worth Rs.6,68,500/-, special adhesive stamps worth Rs.4,44,000/-Court fees stamps worth Rs.51,440/-and advocates and clerks welfare fund stamps worth Rs.11,520/-, totalling Rs.11,75,460/-. P.W-3 is shroff (cashier) in that office. He says that on the date of incident he took delivery of non-judicial stamps and other variety of stamps from Sub-Treasury Office to the extent of Rs.60,727/-and that he sold stamps worth Rs.40,587/-and that remaining stamps worth Rs.20,140/-were there by the time of closing of the office and that he kept cash of Rs.40,587/-and unsold non-judicial stamps in the cash chest and that P.W-1 locked the chest and closed the office by 5.00 P.M. and that on 29.01.1996 at about 8.00 A.M. when Mallikharjuna Rao, attender came to his house and informed, he went to the office where P.Ws 1 and 2 were already present and found breaking open of doors of office and almirah and removal of cash chest (M.O-41) which was placed in steel almirah. He says that when the District Registrar came to Bobbili immediately after informing him about the theft, there was verification of stock in their office and P.W-1 lodged report to the police. 9) Exs.P-1 to P-8 are the indents placed by the Sub-Registrar’s office to the Sub-Treasury Office, Bobbili for supply of stamps and they contain endorsements of the Sub-Registrar Office, Bobbili on the respective dates giving details of stamps supplied by the Sub-Treasury Office against those indents. P.W-1 proved Exs.P-1 to P-8 indents. P.W-4 is the then Sub-Treasury Officer in Bobbili. Exs.P-4 to P-8 indents contain signatures of P.W-4 under endorsements giving details of stamps supplied against those indents. P.W-1 proved Exs.P-1 to P-8 indents. P.W-4 is the then Sub-Treasury Officer in Bobbili. Exs.P-4 to P-8 indents contain signatures of P.W-4 under endorsements giving details of stamps supplied against those indents. The said indents also contain endorsements of the Sub-Registrar, Bobbili acknowledging receipt of the stamps supplied by the Sub-Treasury Officer, thereunder. Exs.P-1 to P-8 undoubtedly indicate that the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bobbili was periodically indenting the Sub-Treasury Office for supply of various varieties of stamps and receiving the stamps. Evidence of P.W-1, P.W-3 and Exs.P-1 to P-8 indicate that sale of several varieties of stamp papers is also undertaken by the Sub-Registrar Office. Ex.P-9 report gives particulars of stamps stolen from the Sub-Registrar’s office with reference to denominations and number of stamps in each denomination and in each variety. The said abstract appended to Ex.P-9 report shows that there was lot of verification and exercise done in the Sub-Registrar’s Office to arrive at details of stamps stolen in that office by breaking open locks of the office as well as the record room therein where steel almirah was located. In the light of details of stolen stamps given in Ex.P-9 report itself after doing verification exercise from records in Sub-Registrar’s office, non production of stock register and sales register of Sub-Registrar’s Office by the prosecution assume little importance. When Ex.P-9 report itself contains details of stolen property in specie, production of stock register and sales register of the defacto-complainant’s office becomes superfluous. In case there was theft of a gold ornament, non production of purchase bill by the complainant of the said stolen ornament, cannot defeat report/complaint given by the victim to the police and the case filed by the police after apprehending the culprit with the stolen gold ornament. In a case of theft of any valuable property, the Court has to see whether theft is proved or not and not whether ownership of the stolen property is proved by the defacto-complainant/victim by production of documents therefor. In my opinion, adverse comment made by the lower Court for non-production of stock register and sales register of Sub-Registrar’s office is manifestly unjust and highly unreasonable and a total distortion. In my opinion, adverse comment made by the lower Court for non-production of stock register and sales register of Sub-Registrar’s office is manifestly unjust and highly unreasonable and a total distortion. I have no hesitation from the above discussion of prosecution evidence that there was theft in office of the Sub-Registrar, Bobbili in which there was theft of stamps worth Rs.11,75,460/-, details of which are mentioned in Ex.P-9 report, apart from cash chest containing cash of Rs.43,287/-. 10) With regard to seizure of the stolen property, there is evidence of P.W-32 Inspector of Police, Bobbili circle who effected arrests of A-1, A-2 and A-4 and took A-3 into police custody and seized M.Os 1 to 41 at their instance. P.W-31 is predecessor of P.W-32 in Bobbili Circle. During his tenure, after the offence, P.W-31 could not make any progress in investigation. After P.W-31 was transferred, P.W-32 took charge of Bobbili Circle on 03.02.1996. It is evidence of P.W-32 that during the course of investigation on 09.06.1996 at about 8.00 A.M. he received information through reliable sources regarding probable offender responsible in this case and possibility of obtaining vital clues from the said offender. Immediately P.W-32 secured presence of P.Ws 21 and 22 and surprised house of A-1 at Raovari Street, Bobbili and found A-1 in his house. P.W-32 arrested A-1 in the presence of said mediators P.Ws 21 and 22 at 9.00 A.M. and interrogated him. It is evidence of P.W-32 that A-1 gave confessional statement and volunteered to produce stolen cash as well as stolen stamps in this case and that A-1 produced cash of Rs.35,000/-as per M.Os 1 to 3 and non-judicial stamps of various denominations whose total worth was Rs.1,57,410/-vide M.Os 4 to 11 and that he seized M.Os 1 to 11 from A-1 under Ex.P-42 mediators report. He also seized M.O-42 stock register and M.Os 43 and 44 sales registers pertaining to stamp vendor business of A-1 from A-1 under the same mediators report. The alleged confessional statement of A-1 contained in Ex.P-42 mediators report is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. That portion of statement of A-1 contained in Ex.P-42 mediators report leading to A-1 handing over M.Os 1 to 11 cash and stamps is saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The alleged confessional statement of A-1 contained in Ex.P-42 mediators report is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. That portion of statement of A-1 contained in Ex.P-42 mediators report leading to A-1 handing over M.Os 1 to 11 cash and stamps is saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. P.Ws 21 and 22 supported the prosecution case and evidence of P.W-32 on arrest of A-1, statement by A-1, A-1 handing over M.Os 1 to 11 cash and stamps to P.W-32 and seizure of the same by P.W-32 under the cover of Ex.P-42 mediators report. P.W-21 was Village Administrative Officer of Gollapalli village and P.W-22 is Village Administrative Officer of Mallampeta village since retired. Since P.W-32 proceeded to house of A-1 on information and since P.W-32 already secured to Village Administrative Officers for the purpose of employing them as mediators, did not make any effort to secure neighbouring residents of A-1 at the time of Ex.P-42 mediators report. In the capacity of village officers, even though P.Ws 21 and 22 acted as mediators in police cases previously or subsequently, it cannot be said that they are stock mediators for the police. As village officers, a duty is cast on P.Ws 21 and 22 to participate or assist in the investigation of crimes with the police. Apart from evidence of mediators, there is visual evidence of the events happened as recorded in Ex.P-42 mediators report, by way of video shooting of the same by P.W-23 who is a professional videographer. Ex.P-47 is video cassette along with slip, shot by P.W-23 at the time of arrest of A-1 and seizure of M.Os 1 to 11 by P.W-32 from A-1. In the light of these pieces of evidence, evidence of P.W-32 with regard to seizure of M.Os 1 to 11 from A-1 is not liable to be doubted. 11) In pursuance of statement of A-1 given to P.W-32 after his arrest, the police party and mediators went to P.W-5 who was doing finance business under the name of Gayatri finance and cash of Rs.20,000/-(M.O-28) and M.O-29 account book were seized from him. But P.W-5 turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that the police did not seize either cash of Rs.20,000/-or account book from him. But P.W-5 turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that the police did not seize either cash of Rs.20,000/-or account book from him. The said amount of Rs.20,000/-is stated to represent sale proceeds of stolen stamps obtained by A-1 and with which A-1 discharged loan owed to P.W-5. P.W-32 during the course of investigation, also seized Exs.P-11 to P-25 documents from the respective Sub-Registrar offices at Bobbili, Saluru etc., and from the respective persons in whose favour those documents were executed. Original of Exs.P-11 to P-25 are the documents which were engrossed on stolen stamp papers in this case and which stamp papers were purchased by the respective parties from A-1 as stamp vendor. P.W-32 also seized cash of Rs.8,000/-(M.Os-30 to 32) from P.W-6 in pursuance of statement of A-1. All the said seizures were made by P.W-32 in the presence of mediators and under the cover of several mediators’ reports. 12) It is evidence of P.Ws 32, 21 and 22 that on 09.06.1996 A-1 lead them to a tank behind Gopala Krishna Jute Mill, Bobbili and pointed out the same and that with the help of a swimmer, P.W-32 recovered M.O-41 cash chest of Sub-Registrar’s office from under water of the said tank. This incident was also videographed by P.W-23. In that cash chest, cash of Rs.43,287/-was kept in the Sub-Registrar’s office. Even though the tank behind Gopala Krishna Jute Mill, Bobbili is a public place to which general public have got access, it was A-1 who pointed out the same after his arrest and from under water in that tank M.O-41 stolen cash chest in this case was recovered by the police at the instance of A-1. Subsequently A-1 lead the police party and mediators to the house of A-3 in Bobbili, but A-3 was not available in his house; and so photograph of A-3 was seized by P.W-32. Even though originally the police filed charge sheet in this case against A-1 and A-2 only, informing the Court about pendency of further investigation in this case against A-3 and A-4, A-3 surrendered before the Magistrate on 23.04.1997. Subsequently P.W-32 obtained police custody of A-3 through the Magistrate for the sake of further investigation. The police filed two additional charge sheets against A-3 and A-4 separately after A-3’s police custody is completed and after A-4 was arrested. Subsequently P.W-32 obtained police custody of A-3 through the Magistrate for the sake of further investigation. The police filed two additional charge sheets against A-3 and A-4 separately after A-3’s police custody is completed and after A-4 was arrested. 13) On 09.06.1996 itself, subsequent to return from A-3’s house, it is evidence of P.W-32 that A-1 lead the police party to Chintalavalasa village by 5.30 P.M. P.W-32 says that he secured two local mediators viz., P.Ws 24 and 25 and all of them went to the house of A-2 where A-2 was found and that he arrested A-2 at his in-laws’ house and questioned A-2 who gave confessional statement and produced M.Os 12 to 26 stamps from M.O-27 mica bag. The said stamps include non-judicial stamps, special adhesive stamps, adhesive stamps and advocate welfare fund stamps. Total value of stamps M.Os 12 to 26 produced by A-2 was Rs.4,84,618/-. P.W-32 says that they were seized under the cover of Ex.P-56 mediators report. But P.Ws 24 and 25 turned hostile to the prosecution. Even though P.Ws 24 and 25 did not support the prosecution version, in my opinion, evidence of P.W-32 and Ex.P-56 cannot be disbelieved in view of that portion of admissible statement of A-1 contained in ex.P-42 mediators report and Ex.P-47 video cassette and also in view of production of huge amount of stamps worth Rs.4,84,618/-which were kept by A-1 with his brother A-2 for safe custody. At any rate, even though at the instance of A-1 huge quantum of stamps consisting of M.Os-12 to 26 was seized from A-2, even as per the prosecution case, A-2 has no participation in this office, except receiving the said stamps for safe custody from A-1 who is his brother and who is a licenced stamp vendor. Hence, it cannot be said that A-2 is also liable along with A-1 under Section 411 I.P.C. Recovery of M.Os 12 to 26 stamps from possession of A-2 has to be attributed to A-1 who lead the police party to A-2 to whom A-1 entrusted those stamps for safe custody. The prosecution has proved that from and at the instance of A-1, total stamps worth Rs.6,42,028/-were recovered in this case. The prosecution has proved that from and at the instance of A-1, total stamps worth Rs.6,42,028/-were recovered in this case. Apart form physical seizure of those stamps covered by M.Os 4 to 26, the police also seized Exs.P-11 to P-25 registered documents which were engrossed on stamp papers sold by A-1 subsequent to the offence of theft. Value of those stamp papers used for engrossing original documents of Exs.P-11 to 25 also run into huge amount. 14) After taking A-3 into police custody and in pursuance of A-3’s statement, P.W-32 seized cash of Rs.5,000/-(M.Os 33 and 34) as well as non-judicial stamps worth Rs.8,000/-as per M.O-35 located in M.O-36 jute bag under the cover of Exs.P-50 and 51 mediators reports dated 24.04.1997. The alleged confessional statement portion of A-3 in Ex.P-50 is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. P.W-26 is one of the mediators in Exs.P-50 and P-51. He was working as senior assistant in Mandal Revenue Office, Bobbili at that time. He supported the prosecution version contained in Exs.P-50 and 51 and evidence of P.W-32 in this regard. There are absolutely no circumstances to disbelieve his evidence as well as seizure of M.Os-33 to 36 at the instance of A-3. 15) A-4 is a resident of Gajuwaka in Visakhapatnam. P.W-29 the then Inspector of Police, D.C.R.B, Vizianagaram was in-charge of range crime control squad, Vizianagaram district working under the supervision of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam city. His duties included tracing of accused persons and location of crime property. On the instructions of his superior officer, his party traced A-4 who was absconding in this case at Anjaneya Swamy Vagu, Vijayawada on the night of 6/7.12.1997 and produced A-4 before P.W-32/Inspector of Police, Bobbili circle on 07.12.1997 at 10.00 A.M. P.W-32 says that he interrogated A-4 in the police station in the presence of mediators P.W-27 and 28 and in pursuance of statement given by A-4 who lead them to Gajuwaka where at the instance of A-4 he seized M.Os 38 and 39 cash of Rs.2,000/-and M.O-37 non-judicial stamps worth Rs.1,900/-along with M.O-41 calculator under the cover of Ex.P-58 seizure report. P.Ws 27 and 28 turned hostile to the prosecution. They admitted their respective signatures Exs.P-52 and P-53 in Ex.P-58 seizure report. P.W-27 says that he did not read contents of mediators report prior to putting signature on it. P.Ws 27 and 28 turned hostile to the prosecution. They admitted their respective signatures Exs.P-52 and P-53 in Ex.P-58 seizure report. P.W-27 says that he did not read contents of mediators report prior to putting signature on it. He admits that he signed in that mediators report at Gajuwaka. Neither P.W-27 nor P.W-28 explained as to what prompted them to sign in Ex.P-58 seizure report and in what circumstances they had to sign in it even though contents therein did not allegedly happen in their presence. It is evident that P.Ws 27 and 28 were speaking falsehood during trial in the lower Court on recovery of M.Os 37 to 40 from A-4 by P.W-32 under the cover of Ex.P-58 seizure report. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to accept evidence of P.W-32 and Ex.P-58 and seizure on M.Os 37 to 40 from possession of A-4. 16) Even though there is unimpeachable evidence on seizures effected by P.W-32 of huge quantum of cash and various varieties of stamps from and at the instance of A-1, A-3 and A-4, the lower Court grossly erred in not placing reliance on the said evidence and brushing the said evidence aside on flimsy reasons. When there were several sets of mediators for several seizures made by P.W-32 at the instance of A-1, slight variations or contradictions are bound to occur on timings of interrogation and on other details. When the witnesses/mediators were deposing to the events which occurred about 4 or 5 years prior to their evidence in the lower Court, one cannot expect them to state the said events in seriatum and with precision. Variations or contradictions in such circumstances are nothing but natural and they cannot be scrutinised with magnifying classes. 17) From M.Os 42 to 44 stock register and sales registers of A-1’s stamp vendor business, A-1 could not show that he was in legal possession of M.Os-4 to 26 stamps worth Rs.6,42,028/-which were seized from his possession as well as his brother’s possession to whom he gave them for safe custody. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is established to be within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is established to be within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In this case, when A-1 was proved to be in possession of various varieties of stamps worth Rs.6,42,028/-apart from those stamps on which originals of Exs.P-11 to P-25 documents were engrossed, executed and registered, it is for A-1 to explain and prove that he purchased the said huge value of stamps by making indents for purchase either from Sub-Registrar’s office or from Sub-Treasury Office. When M.Os-42 to 44 registers relating to A-1’s stamp vendor business do not establish his valid possession of stamps of the said value and of various denominations and descriptions and when A-1 who is having exclusive knowledge as to how he acquired the said stamps of the said value, it cannot be said that A-1 was in possession of the said stamps validly, legally and authorisedly. 18) The contention of the respondents’ counsel is that presumption under Section 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence act cannot be applied in this case as the seizures were not soon after the theft. In case the seizures were soon after the theft, then a presumption can be drawn to the effect that the persons who are in possession of the stolen property are the thieves or the receivers of stolen properties. The phrase ‘soon after’ occurring in Section 114 Illustration (a) is a relative term; and it cannot be interpreted having a cut off date in mind and with arithmetical basis. It is an elastic term which can be stretched depending on circumstances of each case. Theft in this case was noticed on 29.01.1996 and seizure of huge value of stamps from A-1 and A-2 was on 09.06.1996. It is not A-1’s case that after 29.01.1996 and prior to 09.06.1996 he obtained the stamps covered by M.Os 4 to 26 by purchase from any Sub-Registrar’s office or Sub-Treasury Office. A-1 failed to account for the stamps seized from his possession as well as his brother’s possession to the extent of Rs.6,42,028/-. 19) The respondents’ counsel pleaded for giving benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that there is no identity of the stolen property muchless seized property as part of the stolen property by way of any identity marks or numbers. 19) The respondents’ counsel pleaded for giving benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that there is no identity of the stolen property muchless seized property as part of the stolen property by way of any identity marks or numbers. P.W-1 identified M.Os 4 to 26, 35 and 37 to be stolen properties from the sub-registrar’s office on the date of incident. In cross-examination P.W-1 stated that there are no special identification marks on the stamps, except on the stamps of the denomination of Rs.100/-which contained code numbers. The stamps seized consisted of 88 stamps from A-1 as per M.O-4, 13 stamps seized from A-2 as per M.O-13, 80 stamps seized from A-3 as per M.O-35 and 19 stamps seized from A-4 as per M.O-17 which are all of Rs.100/-denomination; and they were all seized under respective mediators reports by mentioning their code numbers also. P.W-1 identifies all the stamps including the above stamps of Rs.100/-denomination as stolen properties from his office. A-1 could not explain as to how he knew about location of M.O-41 stolen cash chest in tank water behind Gopala Krishna Jute Mill, Bobbili. At the instance of A-1, M.O-41 stolen cash chest was recovered in this case. There is also no explanation on the part of A-3 and A4 as to how and why they came to be in possession of M.Os 35 and 37 non-judicial stamps respectively and for what purpose. 20) On review of the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that there was gross miscarriage of justice in this case in acquitting A-1, A-3 and A-4 by the lower Court. Having regard to the evidence on record, the only conclusion possible and plausible is one of conviction against A-1, A-3 and A-4 and acquittal of all the accused recorded by the lower Court is manifestly unjust and highly unreasonable. By hair splitting reasons the lower Court landed in total erroneous conclusion, which is on the verge of perversity. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reverse finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court in so far as A-1, A-3 and A-4 are concerned. By hair splitting reasons the lower Court landed in total erroneous conclusion, which is on the verge of perversity. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reverse finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court in so far as A-1, A-3 and A-4 are concerned. I find that A-1, A-3 and A-4 are guilty of the charges under Section 411 I.P.C. 21) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed convicting the respondents 1, 3 and 4/A-1, A-3 and A-4 under Section 411 I.P.C and in the circumstances, sentencing A-1 to rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months and A-3 and A-4 to rigorous imprisonment of six months and with fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default to pay fine, to simple imprisonment of three months. The appeal is partly dismissed in so far as the 2nd respondent/A-2 is concerned.