JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment since the appellants in these appeals are convicted by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, on 11.3.1999 in S.T. No. 39/96 for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code. These three appellants along with three others were charged by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code vide Ex. 47. All the accused persons charged abjured their guilt and claimed for their trial. In all 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. None of the accused including the present appellants were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. The present appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section412 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Remaining three accused were acquitted of the offence with which they were charged. 2. The prosecution case runs as under: P.W. 12 Kisanrao Patil was attached to police station Washim on 11.4.1996. On the same day, Nitirajsingh (P.W. 10) lodged oral report. As the said report was disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, crime was registered vide Crime No. 90/96 for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 395 of Indian Penal Code. The oral report lodged by Nitirajsingh is at Ex. 87 whereas the printed F.I.R. is at Ex. 90. The report of Nitirajsingh states that on 11.4.1996 he along with his friend Mangesh (P.W. 11) was returning to Amravati from Washim on a motor cycle. When they crossed 3-4 kms. from Washim, they saw a barbed wire on the road due to which the motor cycle was obstructed and they fell on the road. Three-four persons caught hold of them, and then they took out the cash of Rs. 2500/- consisting of currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- from his pocket. They also snatched golden coloured watch of Timex Company and also took out the silver ring with white pearl from his right hand. They also robbed-off the watch of Titan company from the hand of Mangesh and cash of Rs. 2500/-. They also robbed-off their leather waist-belts. 3. 100/- and Rs. 50/- from his pocket. They also snatched golden coloured watch of Timex Company and also took out the silver ring with white pearl from his right hand. They also robbed-off the watch of Titan company from the hand of Mangesh and cash of Rs. 2500/-. They also robbed-off their leather waist-belts. 3. After registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer along with police officials went to the spot of occurrence and drew spot panchanama (Ex. 60). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellants as well as other co-accused under arrest panchanama. On their search, the Investigating Officer found cash amount with them. Accused Kailash then made a discovery statement, on the basis of which silver ring and Titan watch were recovered in presence of panchas. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of law. Accordingly, they were tried for the offence with which they were charged. The learned Judge of the trial Court found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 4. As observed in the preceding paragraph, none of the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. No appeal was carried by the State against the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Judge of the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. Now, the scope of enquiry in this appeal is limited and it has to been seen whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code. Section 412of Indian Penal Code reads as under: "412. Now, the scope of enquiry in this appeal is limited and it has to been seen whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code. Section 412of Indian Penal Code reads as under: "412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.-Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." A bare reading of the aforesaid section would make it clear that the prosecution is obliged to prove that the accused persons dishonestly received the stolen property knowing or having reason to believe that its possession has been transferred by the commission of dacoity. 5. Now let us scrutinize the relevant evidence of the prosecution in that behalf. P.W. 10 Nitirajsingh and P.W. 11 Mangesh, the persons from whom the articles were robbed, did not identify in the Court the present appellants as the persons who were part and parcel of the gang which intercepted them and took away the articles from them. Further, during the course of investigation no test identification parade was held by the Investigating Officer. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the presence of the present appellants at the time of commission of offence. 6. P.W. 5 is Jayant Rangbhal. He deposed that he was called by the police at the police station. He further deposed that two wrist watches, one silver ring and belt were on a table in the police station. Those articles were shown to him. He proved two panchanamas. Those are at Exs. 66 and 67. Ex. 66 is identification panchanama. Said panchanama recites that the complainant, namely Nitirajsingh, was present in the police station. He identified the watch of Timex company and also the silver ring with pearl. Ex. 67 is the identification panchanama in respect of watch of Titan company by P.W. 11 Mangesh. Those are at Exs. 66 and 67. Ex. 66 is identification panchanama. Said panchanama recites that the complainant, namely Nitirajsingh, was present in the police station. He identified the watch of Timex company and also the silver ring with pearl. Ex. 67 is the identification panchanama in respect of watch of Titan company by P.W. 11 Mangesh. What is important to note is that these articles were not mixed with any other articles. Therefore, in my view, there was no proper identification of the articles. 7. P.W. 6 is Sharadkumar Oza. He is a panch through whom prosecution has proved the discovery statement of appellant Tukaram by which he had agreed to show the place where he had concealed the wrist watches. Ex. 70 is the recovery panchanama. Exs. 69 and 70 would show that the place is having Besharam trees on the side of Washim - Hingoli road. This place is not in exclusive control and domain of appellant Tukaram. In that view of the matter, merely because there is a recovery at the behest of appellant Tukaram, that by itself is not sufficient to record conviction against him. 8. Kailash Paraskar (P.W. 7) was examined to prove the memorandum statement of appellant Raju recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which is at Ex. 75. Seizure panchanama is at Ex. 76 under which a wrist watch, leather belt and cash amount of Rs. 200/- was recovered. 9. P.W. 8 is Vasant Hajare. He has proved the memorandum statement of appellant Kailash in relation to silver ring and gupti which is at Ex. 78 and seizure panchanama which is at Ex. 79. These articles were seized at the instance of appellant Kailash from his house. As observed above, it is clear that the appellants have not actually participated at the time when P.W. 10 Nitirajsingh and P.W. 11 Mangesh were robbed. Only evidence against them is recovery of articles as per their memorandum statement. In my view, the recoveries are not proved with reliable evidence. Further, identification of articles is not in accordance with law. As observed above, it is clear that the appellants have not actually participated at the time when P.W. 10 Nitirajsingh and P.W. 11 Mangesh were robbed. Only evidence against them is recovery of articles as per their memorandum statement. In my view, the recoveries are not proved with reliable evidence. Further, identification of articles is not in accordance with law. What is important to note is that the prosecution case is completely silent and there is no iota of evidence whatsoever to show that these three appellants were knowing that the articles which are recovered at their behest, they were knowing or having any reason to believe that the possession of the articles, which is transferred to them, was outcome of dacoity. In that view of the matter, in my view, the conviction cannot be sustained and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, I make following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 96 of 1999, 101 of 1999 and 124 of 1999 are allowed. (ii) Judgment and order passed by the trial Court on 11.3.1999 in S.T. No. 39/96 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them, as stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment, are quashed and set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code. (iii) Fine amounts, if paid, be refunded to the appellants. (iv) Bail-bonds of each of the appellant stand cancelled.