ORDER : 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District-Janjgir Champa, in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2014, whereby conviction under Section 414 of the IPC awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur in Criminal Case No. 218/2014 vide judgment dated 29.9.2014 has been altered under Section 403 of the IPC and reduced the sentence from RI for six months to the period already undergone by the applicant from 4.5.2014 to 21.10.2014 i.e. SI for 169 days and fine amount shall remain intact to the tune of Rs. 100/-. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Assistant Sub Inspector D.S. Paikra (PW-5), Police Station-Hasaud, District Janjgir-Champa on 3.5.2014 at about 17.30 p.m. received secret information that the applicant and one other person namely Bharat Banjare were going for selling of stolen motor cycles. On such information, the applicant has been apprehended and Bharat Banjare absconded. From the possession of the present applicant, one Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing Registration No. JH-02J/3780 and one Pulser Bajaj bearing registration No. CG-11-CF/3676 were seized vide Ex.P-1. Arrest memo (Ex.P-2) was prepared. The applicant failed to explain the possession of motor-cycles and has not produced any documents. For other accused Bharat Banjare who has absconded, panchnama (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court. The applicant abjured his guilt. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents Exs.P-1 to P-7. Statement of the accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has stated for false implication and has not adduced any defence evidence nor produced any document in his support. 4. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.09.2014 convicted the applicant for offence under Section 414 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. 4. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.09.2014 convicted the applicant for offence under Section 414 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, vide judgment dated 21.10.2014 altered the conviction of the applicant from Section 414 of the IPC to Section 403 of the IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 169 days and fine amount shall remain intact. Against which, this criminal revision has been preferred. 5. Mr. P.M. Shriwas, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the judgment impugned and the judgment of the trial Court are contrary to law. No theft property has been seized from possession of the applicant and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. So, he prays to allow the revision and acquit the applicant. 6. Per contra, Ms Pushplata Khalkho, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the judgment is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 8. Assistant Sub Inspector D.S. Paikra (PW-5) has categorically stated that during the petrolling duty on the basis of secret information that the applicant is going for selling of stolen motor-cycles he was apprehended and from his possession, two motor-cycles have been seized vide Ex.P-1. The applicant failed to explain about the possession of the said vehicles, nor produced any documents. So the offence has been registered. In cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited which discredited his testimony. 9. It is well settled law that official witnesses are also reliable witnesses and only because seizure witnesses have turned hostile, their testimony cannot discarded. 10. So the offence has been registered. In cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited which discredited his testimony. 9. It is well settled law that official witnesses are also reliable witnesses and only because seizure witnesses have turned hostile, their testimony cannot discarded. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Tahir vs. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 held as under: “6.......In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case.” 11. In that view of the matter, the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. It is stated at the Bar that the applicant has already suffered the sentence and fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed.