ORDER : All the revision applications are directed against the order dated 09.12.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 63 of 2013, Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2013/71 of 2013, Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2013, Cr. Appeal No. 66 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 2501 of 2002 was upheld. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the informant, Anil Kumar Gupta, Officer-in-Charge, Sonari Police Station in the written information alleged that under the jurisdiction of Sonari P.S. three vehicles, Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. BR-16K-8010, Marshal Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-1P-6149 and Santro Car bearing Registration No. BR-1116M-0450 were stolen for which case has been instituted. Apart from this, from several areas of the town other vehicles were also stolen and as per direction of the Superintendent of Police, a Task Force comprising of several police personnel was constituted which was headed by the Dy. S.P. whereafter investigation was launched. In course of investigation, accused Anil Sharma disclosed that accused Ramesh Patnaik @ Bada Babu was coming from Cuttack to Jamshedpur for purchasing some stolen vehicles. On said information, Ramesh Patnaik was apprehended and he disclosed that he had come to purchase one stolen Marshal vehicle and also disclosed the names of his associates namely Jitendra Singh, Lalji Sharma, Suresh Kumar Menon, Md. Kamaluddin. He disclosed that they used to prepare fake documents of the vehicle whereafter the stolen vehicles were sold on the basis of forged and fake documents. He told the police that Farid Khan, Anil Sharma and Sajhe @ VIP had purchased the stolen vehicles and in connivance with the District Transport Office and its officials fake document of the vehicles were being prepared. He disclosed that the vehicles have been sold by him and his associates on the basis of fake registration number. In the written information it is mentioned that several theft vehicles which have been seized by the investigating team in this case, were found to be transferred in the name of some other person by the D.T.O. office, Jamshedpur without obtaining a valid No Objection Certificate from the earlier owners. In the written information it is mentioned that several theft vehicles which have been seized by the investigating team in this case, were found to be transferred in the name of some other person by the D.T.O. office, Jamshedpur without obtaining a valid No Objection Certificate from the earlier owners. The informant has mentioned that accused Ramesh Patanayak along with his associates purchased the stolen vehicles and also prepared the fake owner book and sold the same to different persons. 3. On the basis of information the case was instituted and charge-sheet submitted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 414, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against petitioners, Suresh Menon, Jitendra Singh and Md. Kalamuddin and other accused persons. A supplementary charge sheet under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the petitioners, Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu. After cognizance, the charges were framed and on conclusion of trial their statements was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of the evidence and material on record the petitioners Md. Kamaluddin, Jitendra Singh, Lalji Sharma and Suresh Menon were convicted for the charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. of three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to pay the fine to further undergo imprisonment of three months. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 120B of the I.P.C. Petitioner, Jitendra Singh was also found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 414 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years. Petitioner, Gandur Bhagat @ Gadur Bhagat and Peter Murmu have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 166 and 167 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and three years respectively under the aforesaid charges. On appeal the Sessions court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu, has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sessions court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu, has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. That the allegation against the petitioners is false and malacious; that P.W.-1, Anil Gupta, the Police Inspector, stated that on 23.12.2002 he was posted at Sonari Police Station as Officer-in-Charge and on the said date he has prepared written report regarding the theft of vehicle from different places in Jamshedpur and seized the vehicles on the basis of statement of accused, Ramesh Patnaik. P.W.-1 has admitted that the accused did not disclose the name of the employee or the officer of the District Transport Office; that P.W-2, Anil Patel, P.W.-3, Rajesh Kumar Sahu and P.W.-4, Sarju Prasad are seizure list witnesses and they have merely signed on the seizure-list. It is further submitted that the appellate and trial court has failed to appreciate that the petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. neither the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners; that subsequently supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘I.P.C’). It has been contended that ingredients for the offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the I.P.C. is lacking in the present case as neither the investigating officer has been examined and no materials or documents or any order has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner had violated any order or rule or any direction of law issued by any competent higher authority while they were discharging their duties as a clerk of the District Transport Office. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that even if, for arguments sake, it is presumed that there was violation of Sections 48 and 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then the provision of Section 50 provides that there are two modes of transfer of ownership one is by the transferee i.e. the owner of the vehicle and the other is by the transferor of the said vehicle and in the instant case there is no evidence on record to show that this petitioner had violated or acted against the said provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 6. 6. It is argued that the Motor Vehicle Act provides for punishment for violation of any provision of the said Act and for contravention of the provision of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the punishment is prescribed under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the only document which has been brought by the prosecution is Exhibit-3 which is the owner book OR4C 3763, Bolero vehicle in the name of Barun Kumar Singh, who has been examined as P.W.14 and he has nowhere stated that the signature was made by petitioner-Gandur Bhagat in his presence rather he has stated that he had verified about the papers of the vehicle from the office of the District Transport Office, Jamshedpur and had found the documents to be correct and in order. It is submitted that out of the 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution, none of the witnesses have deposed that these petitioners had prepared the documents in contravention of the direction of any order or law. Even if the signature on Ext. – 3, for the argument’s sake is presumed to be made by the petitioners then it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the said owner book was forged or fabricated or it was prepared without following the procedure prescribed under Motor Vehicles Act. That the trial court and the appellate court has passed the impugned order merely on presumption, conjections and surmises. It is pointed out that P.W. – 1, the informant is not the investigating officer and he has not produced any documents to show that he had visited the offices at Andhra Pradesh & Orissa to verify regarding the theft of the vehicles. That the investigating officer has not been examined or any material on record has been produced to show the complicity of the petitioners and non-examination of the investigating officer has prejudiced the defence of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsels for the petitioners namely Suresh Menon, Jitendra Singh and Md. Kalamuddin @ Kamaluddin while adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners-Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu have further submitted that the petitioners have been convicted on account of recovery of Indica Car bearing registration No.JH05C4691. 7. Learned counsels for the petitioners namely Suresh Menon, Jitendra Singh and Md. Kalamuddin @ Kamaluddin while adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners-Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu have further submitted that the petitioners have been convicted on account of recovery of Indica Car bearing registration No.JH05C4691. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn attention to the deposition of P.W. – 11, in paras – 2 & 6, wherein it is admitted that the said vehicle was seized by the police on 24.12.2002 near Kharkai Bridge but subsequently he has deposed in para – 6 that the said vehicle was seized by the police in front of the house of P.W. – 11, vide Exbt. – 1/1. That it would be evident from the seizure list that it was prepared on 23.12.2002 at 09:00 o’clock and place of seizure has been mentioned as R.I.T Campus, in front of the house of the one Sajjan Kumar Paswan; that if the deposition of P.W. – 11 is relied on then the it would be evident that P.W. – 11 was called by the police on 24.12.2002 whereas the seizure list had already been made on 23.12.2002 which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. It has further been contended that P.W. – 6, the seizure list witness, Arun Kumar has testified that he had put his signature at Sonari Police Station. P.W. – 7, Ranjeet Kumar, has merely stated that he put his signature at R.I.T, Jamshedpur. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused on the basis of the confessional statement of accused Ramesh Patnaiak and there is no material to show the complicity of the petitioners. P.W. – 7 in his examination-in-chief, in para – 2, has stated that the Officer-in-Charge of the Sonari Police Station had obtained his signature on the seizure list on 23.12.2002. It is also urged that the offence of forgery is not made out as no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the said documents were forged or fabricated. Neither any of the witnesses have stated that these petitioners had forged the papers. Learned counsels have cited the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. It is also urged that the offence of forgery is not made out as no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the said documents were forged or fabricated. Neither any of the witnesses have stated that these petitioners had forged the papers. Learned counsels have cited the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929 and submitted that for holding a person liable for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 it is necessary that the ingredients of forgery as defined under Section 464 should be fulfilled and in the instant case, there is no evidence firstly to show that these petitioners were authors’ of any forged documents and no material has been brought on record to show that they had cheated or caused loss or injury to any persons; that none of the witnesses have deposed that these petitioners had in any manner deceived or induced any person to deliver any valuable security or property or by their act or omission has caused damage or harm to any person. That there is no evidence on record that the petitioners had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the said offence. 8. On the other hand learned A.P.P has contended that it would be evident from the perusal of the testimony of P.W. – 1, the informant, who has stated that many stolen vehicles were recovered from the possession of these petitioners. It is also submitted that there is evidence on record that the petitioners were involved in fabrication and manufacturing of forged documents and on the basis of which vehicles were sold; that the seizure list witness namely, P.Ws. – 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 12, are witnesses to the seizure of the stolen vehicles and the forged documents. It is further contended that P.W. – 5 has testified that his father bought Indica Car for Rs.2,90,000/- from accused Ramesh Patnaik and subsequently it was known that the said vehicle was a stolen one. – 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 12, are witnesses to the seizure of the stolen vehicles and the forged documents. It is further contended that P.W. – 5 has testified that his father bought Indica Car for Rs.2,90,000/- from accused Ramesh Patnaik and subsequently it was known that the said vehicle was a stolen one. That P.W.–1 has stated that Ramesh Patnaik was apprehended by him and from him various locks, driving license, keys of car and other documents were seized and Ramesh Patnaik had disclosed that the stolen vehicle were brought from Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and sold to various persons and these petitioners were members of the gang which was headed by Ramesh Patnaik and all of them in criminal conspiracy had sold alleged stolen vehicle. It has also contended that the petitioners Gandur Bhagat & Peter Murmu were employees of the D.T.O Office, Jamshedpur and they have connived with the petitioners and without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 48 & 50 of the Act issued the registration and owner books. 9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels and on going through the impugned judgment and the materials on record, it is abundantly clear that the trial court and the appellate court have relied on the evidence of P.W.-1-Anil Kumar Gupta, the informant, who was a member of the task force constituted by the S.P. under the leadership of the Deputy S.P. for investigating the cases of theft of vehicles in the town. From the F.I.R., it is disclosed that one Anil Sharma, who was an accused in TELCO P.S. Case No. 141 of 2002 dated 27.06.2002, was interrogated and he disclosed that Sonu and Samu @ VIP and Ramesh Patnaik prepared forged papers for selling the stolen vehicles. P.W.-1 stated that Anil Sharma informed regarding the coming of Ramesh Patnaik from Cuttack to Jamshedpur for purchasing the stolen vehicles whereafter Ramesh Patnaik was apprehended and he disclosed that he had come to purchase a Marshal vehicle, which was stolen by Sonu@ Dev Kumar Ghosh @ Farid Khan and Sonu @ VIP. P.W.-1’s testimony is that Ramesh Patnaik told him that two stolen Bolero vehicles were lying at the gate of Jitendra Singh and he had brought the forged papers. P.W.-1’s testimony is that Ramesh Patnaik told him that two stolen Bolero vehicles were lying at the gate of Jitendra Singh and he had brought the forged papers. That from the possession of Ramesh Patnaik, two fake owner books, two mobile phones and several keys of vehicles, one rubber stamp was seized in the presence of P.W.-4 and Mahaveer Sahu which is Ext.-1. That Ramesh Patnaik also disclosed that for preparation of the fake registration papers and for marketing the stolen vehicles, he used the services of Jitendra Singh, Lalji Sharma, Md. Kalimuddin and Suresh Kumar Menon. That one Indica with false registration JH-O5C-4691 was sold to P.W.-11, Sajjan Kumar Paswan for three lakh rupees and the said vehicle was seized as per Ext.-1/1 in the presence of witnesses P.W.-6, Arun Kumar and P.W.-7-Ranjit Paswan. That Ramesh Patnaik sold Indica car No. JH-05C-4692 through his agent Suresh Menon to Ram avtaar Upadhyaya which was seized as per Ext. 1/2 in the presence of (P.W.-5)-Subhash Yadav and Mukesh Prasad. That Ramesh Patnaik also disclosed that one Jeep bearing registration No. JH-09A-6907 was sold through agent Kalimuddin. That the proceed of the sale money and the Bolero was lying at the gate of Jitendra Singh and was seized for which Sonari P.S. Case Nos. 91 of 2002 and 96 of 2002. That he had verified the ownership of vehicles from D.T.O. office and found that except for vehicle No. JH-O5C-325, all the other vehicles were registered in the name of Ramesh Patnaik, who was the owner of the said vehicles. That for registration of the said vehicle, the NOC was not called for by the D.T.O. and it was also found that the vehicle with registration No. 5605 was earlier registered at Bolangir having number of Orissa state and it was with respect to Kinetic Honda Scooter. P.W.-1 deposed that Ramesh Patnaik, along with his associates and in collusion with the officials and staff of the District Transport Office, was involved in the sale of stolen vehicles. 10. P.W.-1 deposed that Ramesh Patnaik, along with his associates and in collusion with the officials and staff of the District Transport Office, was involved in the sale of stolen vehicles. 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that PW 1 is a police officer and he recorded the statement of Ramesh Patnaik, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not get the statement of the accused recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is well settled that a confession made by the accused, in custody is inadmissible, under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. However, such statement is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the extent it leads to the discovery of fact. Section 30 of the Evidence Act stipulates the admissibility of confession by an accused against co-accused inculpating himself and other co-accused but such a confessional statement has to be proved and is made while the co-accused is charged and facing trial together with the accused. That such confession can be treated as evidence only when it is proved and it is evident from the testimony of P.W.-1 that the confession of accused, Ramesh Patnaik was not recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. neither any evidence has been brought on record to show that such a statement was recorded in terms of the provisions of Section 281 of Cr.P.C. 11. P.W.-1, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he does not know which are the forms required for registration of a vehicle or the form on which no-objection certificate is issued and he has stated that he had not seen the owner took separately. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not contact the D.T.O. office at Cuttack, Panikoli, Bhandra, Nagpur, Andhra Pradesh. He has also admitted that he had not recorded who was the prior owner of the said vehicles and the relevant papers of the seized vehicles were not shown or seized in the seizure list. 12. It is evident that P.Ws. 8, 9 , 10 viz. Shailesh Jha, Rajan and Devi Vishwakarma have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. P.Ws. 2 and 3 Anil Patel and Rajesh Kumar Sahu have stated that their signature was taken on 23.12.2002, near the house of Shankar mallah and they have no knowledge about the articles seized. 13. 8, 9 , 10 viz. Shailesh Jha, Rajan and Devi Vishwakarma have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. P.Ws. 2 and 3 Anil Patel and Rajesh Kumar Sahu have stated that their signature was taken on 23.12.2002, near the house of Shankar mallah and they have no knowledge about the articles seized. 13. P.W. 4-Sarju Prasad is a seizure list witness of Ext.-1 wherein fake owner book, several keys of vehicles and rubber stamp was recovered from the possession of the accused Ramesh Patnaik. 14. The court below has also relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 11,13 and 14 for recording its finding regarding the complicity of the petitioners, Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu, the then Distrcit Transport Officer and staff of the District Transport Office. On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 11, he had stated that he had verified the documents shown to him by Jitendra Singh from D.T.O. Office and found the documents to be correct and the owner of the said vehicle was mentioned as Ramesh Patnaik. He has stated that he had purchased the vehicles from Ramesh Patnaik and the said vehicle was transferred in his name in writing by Ramesh Patnaik. That he had not produced any paper regarding the transaction of the vehicle before the police and he had not given anything in writing to the D.T.O. office, neither he received anything in writing from the D.T.O. Office. He testified that he had only verified regarding the owner book and no other documents. 15. P.W.-14-Varun Kumar Singh has submitted that Lalji Sharma had come with Ramesh Patanik with a Bolero bearing registration No. OR-04C-3763 and Ramesh Patanik had shown him the owner book, NOC and told him that he had applied for permanent address in D.T.O. Jamshedpur and told him that in 2-4 days, the permanent address would be entered and thereafter the owner-book would be given to him and after 3-4 days, Ramesh Patanik came and gave him the owner book and asked him to take the book to the D.T.O. office. Thereafter he went with the book to the DTO Office, Jamshedpur, along with his lawyer and on checking the register, he found it to be correct whereafter his name was entered as the owner. He has filed the owner-book which is Ext-3 and stated that the signature of one Bhagat Saheb is mentioned therein. Thereafter he went with the book to the DTO Office, Jamshedpur, along with his lawyer and on checking the register, he found it to be correct whereafter his name was entered as the owner. He has filed the owner-book which is Ext-3 and stated that the signature of one Bhagat Saheb is mentioned therein. That the police had come and asked for the vehicle as they had to go to Puri but on the next day, the police informed him that the vehicle was a theft property. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not have any transaction with the staff of the D.T.O. office. That the registration/owner book was of Chandikal, Orissa but he did not got to Orissa for verifying the same and stated that in the owner book, the permanent address of Ramesh Patanik was mentioned and the transfer of owner book was done by Ramesh Patanik and not by him. That he did not obtain any documents from the D.T.O. Office on anything in writing whether the said document was written by the D.T.O. He has admitted that he had not produced the owner book before the I.O. That he did not verify from the D.T.O. Office after getting knowledge about the said vehicle, being a theft property. That he has produced and filed the document for the first time in the Court. 16. P.W.-13, Basant Upadhaya has stated that Ramesh Patanik came and showed him the vehicle and gave him the papers whereafter he went to the office of D.T.O. Office, Jamshedpur and got it verified and found the papers to be correct. That he got the owner book and the vehicle was transferred in his name. That he was plying the vehicle for commercial house. That the police asked him to produce the papers of the vehicle and told him that there was a fault in the number on which the vehicle was transferred. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had not given any verification report in writing to the D.T.O. 17. Looking to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 11, 13 and 14, it clearly emerges that the vehicles were sold by accused Ramesh Patanik. The recovery of the vehicles were made on the basis of the statement made by Ramesh Patanik. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had not given any verification report in writing to the D.T.O. 17. Looking to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 11, 13 and 14, it clearly emerges that the vehicles were sold by accused Ramesh Patanik. The recovery of the vehicles were made on the basis of the statement made by Ramesh Patanik. P.W. -1 has admitted that he does not know what are the forms required for registration of a vehicle neither does he know, on which form N.O.C. is obtained. P.W. 1 did not visit or verify the paper of the vehicle alleged to have brought from various places in Orissa or Andhra Pradesh. He did not seize any papers from the office of the D.T.O. Jamshedpur. The owner book, Ext-1, which has been produced by P.W. 11, was not seized by the police neither any investigation of verification was made with respect to signature of some Bhagat Saheb appearing in the owner book and P.W. 14 has stated that he had no transaction with the D.T.O. Office and the said owner book was handed over to him by accused Ramesh Patnaik. 18. The testimony of the witnesses, as noticed, has not been corroborated by any material on record to show that the documents were prepared by the petitioners Peter Murmu, the District Transport Officer, or Gandur Bhagat, the employee of the District Transport Office. It also transpires that the aforesaid accused have been charged for the offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 166 stipulates that a public servant knowingly disobeys a direction of the law while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duty so as to cause injury to any person will be liable for punishment for the said offence. Section 167 prescribes for punishment of a public servant charged with the preparation of translation of any document in a manner, which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, will be liable for punishment. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clear that none of the witnesses have stated about any specific illegal act or omission committed by the petitioners. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clear that none of the witnesses have stated about any specific illegal act or omission committed by the petitioners. The prosecution has also not named the petitioners in the First Information Report, rather supplementary charge sheet was submitted against them. No material evidence to show that the petitioners had acted in violation of any direction of law to prove the charge against the petitioners have been brought on record. The prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution in the given facts of the present case. No incriminating material has been put to the petitioners while recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 19. In view of the discussions and the evidence on record, it is held that that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 166 and 167 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners, Gandur Bhagat and Peter Murmu. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the said charges. 20. P.W.-1 has stated that the forged owner-books, rubber stamp, keys of several vehicles etc. were recovered from the accused Ramesh Patanik, as per Ext. 1/1, in the presence of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7. P.W.-1 deposed that Indica bearing No. JH-05C-4691 was sold to Sajjan Kumar Paswan (P.W.-11) through Jitendra Singh. P.W.-11 has testified that Jitendra Singh had told him that he works for GMAC Finance and he sells seized vehicles. That the documents of the vehicle was verified by him and he found that the same was registered in the name of Ramesh Patnaik. That Jitendra Singh started processing and financed one lakh eighty thousand from GMAC. That he had paid Rs. 40,000/- in cash on 15.11.2002 to Ramesh Patnaik and Ramesh Patnaik had given him the money receipt. That he had deposited the amount of Rs, 1,80,000/- in his S.B.I. account and had paid Rs. 2,20,000/- to Jitendra Sing in the presence of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7. P.W.-6 has stated that the vehicle was seized on 23.12.2002 from the house of P.W.-11. That Sajjan Kumar had purchased the vehicle for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. In cross-examination he has stated that the police had taken his signature at Sonari police station and he had not seen any document regarding the sale and purchase of the vehicle. P.W.-6 has stated that the vehicle was seized on 23.12.2002 from the house of P.W.-11. That Sajjan Kumar had purchased the vehicle for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. In cross-examination he has stated that the police had taken his signature at Sonari police station and he had not seen any document regarding the sale and purchase of the vehicle. P.W.-7 has also state that the Officer-in-Charge of Sonari P.S. had got his signature on 23.12.2002 and seized an Indica. He has further stated that Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from the bed of Jitendra Singh. P.W.-11 has contradicted the seizure from his house and stated that on 24.12.2002, the police made him get down from the car and took away the car from Kharkai bridge. He has also admitted that a case was lodged against him at Kolkata, regarding the finance money from GMAC, in which he was granted bail. The above statement of P.W-11 shows that the vehicle was seized on 24.12.2002 by the police at Kharkai bridge and not from his house on 23.12.2002, as stated by P.W.-7. P.W.-6 has also stated that he had signed on the seizure list at the police station. P.W.-11 has stated that he did not lodge any case because a case had already been lodged earlier. In cross-examination he has stated that he had purchased the vehicle from Ramesh Patanik and the said vehicle was transferred by Ramesh Patanik in his name in writing, but there was no agreement and he had paid Rs., 40,000/- to Ramesh Patanik. P.W.-1 has admitted that for the seizure of money a separate case being Sonari P.S. Case No. 96 of 2002 had been lodged. The seizure list Ext. 1/1 shows the date of seizure of the vehicle JH-05C-4691 as 23.12.2002 bearing the case No. 101 of 2002 dated 24.12.2002 which shows that the seizure was made prior to the lodging of the said P.S. Case and the place of the seizure of the vehicle is also doubtful. There is no seizure brought on record regarding the seizure of money, as alleged by the witnesses. P.W.-1 has admitted that the names of the accused were disclosed by Ramesh Patanik. There is no seizure brought on record regarding the seizure of money, as alleged by the witnesses. P.W.-1 has admitted that the names of the accused were disclosed by Ramesh Patanik. If the prosecution case is believed to be true that seizure was made on 23.12.2002 then there is no explanation as to why P.W.-11 did not lodge the F.I.R. on 23.12.2002 against Jitendra Singh, rather P.w.-11 has stated that the seizure was made on 24.12.2002 and this creates a doubt regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s case. P.W-11 has also admitted that petitioner, Jitendra Singh had arranged the finance of Rs.1,80,000/- from GMAC, which he had deposited in his S.B.I. account. That a case was lodged against him regarding the finance of money by GMAC. This statement indicates that P.W-11 had a grudge against the petitioner Jitendra Singh. It is admitted by P.W.-11 that he had paid advance of Rs. 40,000/- to Ramesh Patanaik and received the money receipt and the owner book was transferred by Ramesh Patnaik in his name, which is also admitted by him in his cross-examination P.W. 1 has admitted that no incriminating articles was recovered from the possession of Kalimuddin or from accused Suresh Menon. 21. None of the witnesses have stated about the complicity of Suresh Menon and Md. Kalimuddin. It is admitted case that the names of the petitioners have transpired in the confessional statement of the accused Ramesh Patnaik. As discussed above, such confessional statement of an accused, is admissible against a co-accused only when it has been proved in accordance to the provisions of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 281 of the Cr.P.C. but no material has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the statement was recorded in accordance with the provisions of law to make it admissible against co-accused. From the evidence on record, it emerges that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any clinching evidence that these petitioners had forged or fabricated any document and used the said document to cheat or deceive any persons. The prosecution has also not been able to establish that any stolen vehicle was recovered from the petitioners vis. Suresh Menon, Md. Kalimuddin and Jitendra Singh. The evidence of the witnesses reveals that they had purchased the alleged stolen vehicles from accused Ramesh Patnaik and not from these petitioners. The prosecution has also not been able to establish that any stolen vehicle was recovered from the petitioners vis. Suresh Menon, Md. Kalimuddin and Jitendra Singh. The evidence of the witnesses reveals that they had purchased the alleged stolen vehicles from accused Ramesh Patnaik and not from these petitioners. There is no material on record to show that the said petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy for creating any forged documents and used the said documents to deliver any property or cheated any witnesses by fabricating and forging the said documents neither any stolen vehicles was recovered from the possession of the petitioners viz, Suresh Menon, Md. Kalimuddin and Jitendra Singh. 22. Considering the evidence on record and the discussions made above, it is held that the prosecution had not been able to establish the charge under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 414 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, Suresh Menon, Md. Kalimuddin and Jitendra Singh accordingly the petitioners are held not guilty and are acquitted of the said charges. 23. The petitioners namely Gandur Bhagat, Peter Murmu, Suresh Menon, Md. Kalimuddin @ Kalamuddin and Jitendra Singh are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail-bonds. 24. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court and the appellate court is, hereby, set aside. In the result, all the above revision applications are hereby allowed.