ORDER : 1. This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 23.08.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with the co-convict-Sarful Khan was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2009, passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in R.P. Case No.95 of 1996, whereby the petitioner along with co-accused were found guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) R.P. (U.P.) Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each, has been affirmed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 18.06.1996, a raid was conducted by C.I.B., Dhanbad under the leadership of Sri V.P.Verma with assistance of R.P.F., and huge quantity of railway materials were recovered from the possession of Virendra Singh, Nand Lal Paswan and Md. Habib. The accused persons gave their confessional statement and on their statement, a raid was conducted in the godown situated at Godhar (Ghansadih), jointly owned by Pappu Khan, Shamser Khan and Sarful Khan. As soon as the raiding party reached there, these three accused persons fled away and their two staff, namely, Bhola Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav were arrested. Huge railway materials were recovered from there, for which no authority was produced. Seizure list was prepared. A case was registered in this regard and after enquiry prosecution report was submitted against the accused Virendra Singh, Nand Lal Paswan, Md. Habib, Bhola Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav, Pappu Khan, Shamser Khan and Sarful Khan. During the pendency of trial, the cases of accused Virendra Singh, Nand Lal Paswan, Md. Habib, Bhola Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav and Shamser Khan were split up from the original record. 3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no complain petition filed in the instant case and the raid was conducted at the second place of occurrence on the confessional statement of one Bhola Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav, but the confessional statement of those accused persons have not been prepared by the prosecution. He further submits that though there was two independent witnesses, who were present at the time of seizure and they were made witnesses of this case, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, were not examined. He further submits that though there was two independent witnesses, who were present at the time of seizure and they were made witnesses of this case, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, were not examined. He further contended that all the prosecution witnesses were members of the raiding party or formal witnesses, as such relying upon their deposition; conviction of the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law. He further referred judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.804/2014 with Criminal Revision No.801 of 2014, wherein this Court after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The State/Railway Protection Force Vs. Raju, reported in 2014 SCC Online Del 575 has held as under:- “Under the RPF Regulation 1966, there was a requirement for the RPF to maintain registers which would show the movement of the Railway staff on patrolling duty. Although the said Regulations stand repealed, it is not known whether under Rule 268 of the RPF Rules 1987, the proforma of the records and registers for maintaining the entries of such movement have been prescribed. In any event, when the question arises whether an RPF Officer was on patrolling duty at a particular point in time when the suspect was apprehended, the burden would be on the RPF to prove before the Court by producing such records and registers in original that the movement of the RPF officers involved in the arrest is reflected in the register maintained for that purpose”. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned senior counsel contended that, the learned trial court should have acquitted the petitioner on account of non-production of the Crime Register before the court below, however by not appreciating the aforesaid fact and also the fact that the independent witnesses who were present at the time of search and seizure were not examined, benefit of doubt should have been given to the petitioner. 4. Learned APP for the State strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that no error has been committed by the learned Trial Court, which after considering the documents and after appreciating the deposition of the witnesses has convicted the petitioner along with the co-accused. He further submits that re-appreciation of evidences in revision jurisdiction is not warranted and the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard, Mr. He further submits that re-appreciation of evidences in revision jurisdiction is not warranted and the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard, Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned APP for the State. 6. After going through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, it appears that the prosecution did not prove the confessional statement of accused Virendra Singh, Nand Lal Paswan, Md. Habib, Bhola Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav on the basis of which, the raid was conducted at the second place of occurrence, which has been alleged to be owned and possessed by the petitioner herein. 7. The learned Trial Court categorically observed in para-15 of its judgment as under:- “I am very surprised that the prosecution did not prove the confessional statement of accused Virendra Singh, Nand Lal Paswan, Md. Habib, Bhola Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav. But the law is not the slave of either prosecution or the defense. And a culprit cannot be left free due to lacunas of prosecution”. 8. Even after observing that the prosecution did not prove the confessional statement of other accused persons, came to the finding that the culprit cannot be left free due to lacunas of prosecution. From the records, it also appears that two independent witnesses were present at the time of seizure and they were made witnesses of this case, but for the reason best known to the prosecution they were not examined and no explanation has been given by the prosecution for non-examining those independent witnesses. It also appears that no Crime Register has been produced before the Court below. 9. Non-examination of the seizure list witnesses creates doubt with regard to recovery of seized articles from possession of the petitioner. The evidence of seizure list witnesses is very crucial for prosecution to prove the genuineness of search and seizure. It also appears that no Crime Register has been produced before the Court below. 9. Non-examination of the seizure list witnesses creates doubt with regard to recovery of seized articles from possession of the petitioner. The evidence of seizure list witnesses is very crucial for prosecution to prove the genuineness of search and seizure. Moreover, the non-examination of the seizure list witnesses definitely creates doubt over the prosecution case as is required under Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. As per provisions of the Section (100)(4) of Cr.P.C. before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. In the instant case, from the evidence available on record, it appears that seizure list witnesses named in the seizure list did not appear in court to support the seizure of the article recovered from the petitioner. 10. In the instant case, all the prosecution witnesses are either member of raiding party or formal witnesses, as such relying upon these witnesses and without the deposition of any independent witnesses, conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding necessity of examination of independent witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court had committed a gross error in ignoring this lacuna in the case of the prosecution, as such the instant application deserves to be allowed. 12. Consequently, the judgment dated 23.08.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2009 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2009, passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in R.P. Case No.95 of 1996, are, hereby, set aside. 13. As a result this criminal revision application is hereby allowed. 14. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 15. 13. As a result this criminal revision application is hereby allowed. 14. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned along with a copy of this order forthwith. Revision allowed.