ORDER : 1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9/8/2011 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bellary, in CC No.636/2008 convicting them for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentencing for the same, confirmed by the Fast Track Court No.1, Bellary, in Crl.A.No.38/2011 by order dated 17/10/2011 have filed the petition questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case before the trial Court are that on 10/12/2007 the complainant was proceeding in front of Prabhatha Talkies, Bellary, in the market for getting repair of her charger light. At about 11.00 a.m, some unknown persons stopped her and told that they are working in police department and that some galata is going on in the market and some robbers are snatching the golden ornaments from the women in the market. They asked her to handover her two golden bangles and one gold chain having ‘OM shape dolor’ each weighing 2.5tolas and that they will pack it in a appear and give it to her. Accordingly, the complainant believing their words handed over her golden ornaments to them. They packed the same in a paper and handed over to her. She went to her house and opened the said pack and was shocked to see that there were three rold gold bangles and one stone in the packet. Immediately, she came to the spot where the said persons had taken her ornaments, but the accused were not found there. Thereafter, she went to police station and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the case and in the course of investigation, arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized the gold chain belongs to the complainant at the instance of the accused. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. The trial Court framed the charges against accused No.1 and 2 which they denied. Therefore, the matter was posted for trial. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 8 documents as EX.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 3 were also marked. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 was Cr.P.C. was recorded explaining the incriminating evidence against them. They denied the evidence. They did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. 4. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 8 documents as EX.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 3 were also marked. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 was Cr.P.C. was recorded explaining the incriminating evidence against them. They denied the evidence. They did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing both the prosecution and defence recorded a finding that the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted them for the said offence. 5. The trial Court after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, sentenced them to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine both shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It was also directed that out of the fine amount Rs.4,000/-each shall be given to the victim-complainant as compensation. 6. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court preferred Crl.A. 38/2011 on the file of the Fast Tract Court No.1, Bellary. The said Court secured the lower Court records. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned public prosecutor and dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 17/10/2011. 7. Petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below in this revision petition 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 19/2/2008 in Crime No.167/2006 of Gandhi Nagar police station and they were subsequently, involved in the present case and that they were acquitted in Crime No.167/2006 in which they were tried in CC No.404/2008. However, the accused petitioners were convicted in CC no.636/2008, though prosecution has not proved the alleged offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint was filed against unknown persons and that the complainant has not identified the petitioners as the persons who cheated her. However, the accused petitioners were convicted in CC no.636/2008, though prosecution has not proved the alleged offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint was filed against unknown persons and that the complainant has not identified the petitioners as the persons who cheated her. On the other hand, the police officer shown the accused persons to the complainant and informed her that they are the persons who cheated her and therefore, there is no proper identification of the accused by the complainant. It is also submitted that the seizure of the valuable property concerned to this case at the instance of the accused is not proved. The learned counsel also submitted that the gold chain pertaining to the present case was not produced before the Court. 10. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the trial Court and the Appellate Court have appreciated the entire evidence on record and have recorded a finding that the offence under Section 420 IPC is proved against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. This Court in a revision petition cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. There is nothing to discard the evidence of PW-1-the complainant and PW-6-the police officer. 11. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that under Section 134 of Evidence Act quality of the evidence has to be considered and not the quantity of the evidence. 12. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader now the following point arise of consideration before this Court:- “Whether the impugned orders passed by the courts below suffers from legality, propriety and correctness, therefore are liable to be set aside?” 13. This Court while hearing the revision petitioners need not re-appreciate the evidence on record. The appellate Court has reappreciated the evidence on record and has confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. This Court has to consider whether there is any illegality or impropriety in recording the findings by the courts below. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant has not identified the petitioners as the persons who took her golden ornaments and cheated her. Further, that the seizure of the gold chain pertaining to the complainant at the instance of the petitioners is not proved. 14. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant has not identified the petitioners as the persons who took her golden ornaments and cheated her. Further, that the seizure of the gold chain pertaining to the complainant at the instance of the petitioners is not proved. 14. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 was appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal. The complainant Tungamma was examined as PW-1 before the trial Court. She has clearly deposed and has identified the petitioners as the persons who took her gold bangles and gold chain, packed the same in a paper and handed over to her. She has identified the accused persons in the police station and she also identified the gold chain which was seized at the instance of the accused persons. The said gold chain was released to the complainant. She produced the same before the Court at the time of evidence and same was marked as MO3. This is not disputed by the petitioners herein. 15. PW-1 throughout her cross examination has stated nothing so as to discard her evidence regarding the identity of the accused and their involvement in the crime. PW-6 Umesh Naik being the investigating officer has deposed about the arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O-3 gold chain on their information and at their instance. He has also stated that the complainant identified the petitioners as the persons who have cheated her, only because the seizure mahazar witnesses and goldsmith have not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of PWs-1 and PW-6 cannot be brushed aside. It is not the case of the petitioners that proper opportunity was not given to them for cross examination of the witnesses or for production of any evidence in defence. It is true that when the complaint was filed, the case was registered against the unknown persons which is the natural course as the complainant was not aware of the names of the accused persons. The complainant has stated that at the time of incident, she has talked with the accused persons for 5 to 10 minutes and therefore, she is able to identify them by face. The complainant has stated that at the time of incident, she has talked with the accused persons for 5 to 10 minutes and therefore, she is able to identify them by face. Under these circumstance, the evidence of complainant in identifying the accused persons and also recovery of MO.3-gold chain at the instance of the petitioners-accused persons is sufficient to prove the offence under Section 420 IPC against them beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioners knowingly that in place of gold bangles and gold chain, they have handed over rold gold bangles and a stone in the paper packet, goes to show that they had dishonest intention to cheat the complainant. Even it is stated that the accused persons told the complainant that they are working in police department, thereby they induced her to believe them. It is also pertinent to observe that complaint was filed within 45 minutes after the incident. The complainant has identified the accused persons in the police station and also before the Court at the time of her evidence. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below nor there is any illegality or impropriety committed by the Courts below in recording the findings against the petitioners that they have cheated the complainant and thereby committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The offence is proved against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not suffer from legality, propriety and correctness. Therefore, the revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.