ORDER : 1. This Criminal revision has been filed, to set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram, dated 14.07.2011 in Crl. Appeal No.21 of 2011 confirming the conviction and the modified sentence imposed on the petitioner, passed by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Portanova (Parangipettai) in C.C.No.194 of 2008 dated 11.02.2011. 2. The first accused in C.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Porotanova is the revision petitioner herein. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 04.10.2007, the TASMAC shop No.2530 was closed for the day and the collection of the day to the tune of Rs.46,724/- was deposited in the locker inside and in the next day, the doors of the said shop was found to be broken and amount was found to be missing. Based upon the complaint of P.W.1 F.IR was registered and after one year, the revision petitioner along with two other accused was arrested and remanded for offences in Crime No.162 of 2008 on 12.07.2008 in which, the revision petitioner said to have given alleged confession statement, further, in his involvement respect of the Crime No.194 of 2007 (the present case) also and based upon that, the arrest has been made by the Investigating Officer, while, the revision petitioner/accused was in custody in the above said Crime No.162 of 2008. Subsequently, on filing a petition, he was taken to police custody, in which, he has given alleged confession statement, alleging that he has committed a crime of theft of Rs.46,724/- from the above TASMAC shop No.2530 and from and out of the sale proceeds, purchased watch and the said confession statement has been attested by P.W.6 and P.W.7 and seizure Mahazar is marked as Exhibit P8. After enquiry, the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Portanova, by an order dated 11.02.2011 convicted all the accused and the sentenced to go 3 months R.I under Section 457 CrPC. 4. Aggrieved against the said order and conviction and sentence, the Revision Petitioner has preferred Crl.RC. before the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram and after following the procedure, the appeal was dismissed and conviction was confirmed. However, sentence has been modified and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 7 weeks R.I and hence, the first accused has preferred the Crl.RC. 5. Heard both sides. 6. before the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram and after following the procedure, the appeal was dismissed and conviction was confirmed. However, sentence has been modified and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 7 weeks R.I and hence, the first accused has preferred the Crl.RC. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short point that needs to be addressed in the case is as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in short, whether the prosecution have proved nexus between the crime and the accused herein. As stated supra, the revision petitioner stood charged for offence under Section 380 & 457 I.P.C for the alleged theft of Rs.46724/- from the TASMAC shop. 7. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined the Supervisor and the shop owner as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the neighbouring shop owner were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 who have spoken about the factual of theft. The attestor of the observation Mahazar was examined as P.W.5. While, the attestor of the confession statement and the seizure mahazar were examined as P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, 9, 10 are police witnesses. It remains to be stated that attestor of the observation mahazar and attestor of the confession statement and the seizure mahazar namely P.W.5, 6, 7 turned hostile. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence much less any corroborating evidence to give a link to the alleged factum of theft and the accused. The revision petitioner was implicated based upon the alleged confession statement said to have given by him in crime NO.162 of 2008. Subsequently, when the police custody was taken on 08.08.2008, it is further projected that the present revision petitioner/A1 is alleged to have been given another confession statement which is said to have been lead to a discovery of fact namely MO1 watch and MO2 rod. As stated supra, the attestor of the observation mahazar, seizure mahazar and the confession statement have turned hostile. In the Circumstances, merely relying upon the police witnesses, both the Courts below have concurrently uphled that there was nexus between the crime and accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt which is erroneous and the same suffers from the fact that, there is no positive or corroborating evidence on record to show the alleged confession statement leading to recovery of MO1 and MO2. Both the seizure and mahazar witnesses as well as the witness to confession statement have turned hostile. This Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove link between the accused and the crime from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 if at all what could be inferred is there was a theft of money to the tune of Rs.46724/-. However, to prove the link between the accused and crime, there is no positive evidence. Admittedly, P.Ws.5, 6, 7 have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and hence, I find that the order of the trial Court is not sustainable in law and the prosecution having not proved the nexus between the accused and crime in the manner known to law, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by letting in positive evidence and therefore the order passed by the Court below are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. The Revision Petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt in view of the want of evidence to prove his nexus with the crime giving benefit of doubt to the accused/revision petitioner and accordingly acquitted of the offence. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is modified and order of the lower Appellate Court in C.A.No.21 of 2011 are set aside. 9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the District Munsif Magistrate, Portanova in C.C.No.194 of 2008 and modified by the Additional District Judge Cum Fast Track Court No. I, Chidambram in Crl.A.No.21 of 2011 are set aside giving benefit of doubt to the Revision Petitioner. The accused is acquitted and the bail bond executed by him and the fine paid by him shall stand cancelled and the same shall be returned to the Revision Petitioner forthwith. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.