ORDER : 1. The respective petitioners have filed separate these two revision petitions praying this Court to set aside the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.53/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K., confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed in C.C.No.1338/2003 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) JMFC, Sullia, D.K. for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, petitioner herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the lurking of building trespass and committed theft of watches worth Rs.70,000/-in the shop belonging to PW1 situated at Kallugundi of Sampaje village of Sullia taluk. Based on the complaint, the case was registered and recovery was made during the course of investigation and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Accused persons were secured before the Trial Court and recorded the plea of accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against accused persons, examined witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P29 and also marked MO1 to MO10. The Trial Court recorded the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and accused persons did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, convicted accused persons for the charges leveled against them and hence, an appeal was filed in Crl.A.No.53/2007 and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petitions are filed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.RP No.875/2013 vehemently contend that according to the prosecution, incident was taken place on 14.05.2003 and when the complainant came to know about the committing of lurking of building and theft, the case was registered and these petitioners were arrested on 21.06.2003 and the alleged recovery was made on 22.06.2003. The counsel would vehemently contend that regarding arrest is concerned, PW5 gives different version and though he says that the arrest was made near Sharma Watch Works but in the cross-examination, he admits that when they were proceeding to go to Puttur, accused persons were apprehended. The counsel would vehemently contend that regarding arrest is concerned, PW5 gives different version and though he says that the arrest was made near Sharma Watch Works but in the cross-examination, he admits that when they were proceeding to go to Puttur, accused persons were apprehended. The counsel also would submit that the witnesses have not examined regarding seizure and mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel also would submit that receiver was also not examined before the Trial Court and when the recovery witnesses have not examined and watch stand and weapon were thrown into the well according to the prosecution, there are no materials placed before the Trial Court. However, both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the case of the prosecution and prayed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl. R.P.No.935/2013 vehemently contend that there is no corroborative evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He would also submit that only bills were produced for having purchase the stolen articles and except the evidence of PW1 and police witnesses, no other material are found and the counsel also reiterates that the receiver has not been examined before the Trial Court and even recovery is also not proved. Hence, prayed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that accused No.2 involved in 9 other cases and details were also given in page No.35 and the Trial Court taking into note of the said fact made an observation that accused No.2 is a habitual offender and he was already convicted in 9 other cases in the similar offences. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the recovery was made at the instance of accused persons. PW1, 2, 4, 5 have categorically deposed with regard to the recovery is concerned. The official witnesses evidence cannot be discarded when the same were inspires the confidence of the Court. The minor contradictions appeared in the case will not go to the very root of the case of the prosecution. PW1, 2, 4, 5 have categorically deposed with regard to the recovery is concerned. The official witnesses evidence cannot be discarded when the same were inspires the confidence of the Court. The minor contradictions appeared in the case will not go to the very root of the case of the prosecution. Even though the other mahazar witnesses were not examined, PW5 also witnessed to the mahazar regarding recovery and his evidence is very clear that accused only led him and other witnesses to Kerala and stolen articles were seized within a period of one month of the alleged committing of offences. Place of arrest is only a minor discrepancy and PW4, 5 evidences were corroborates with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court in the revision. 6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is: (1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and the Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (2) What order? Point No.1: 7. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record and looking into the grounds urged by the respective counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and this Court has to consider the fact that whether is there any perversity in the finding of both the Courts and whether the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from any illegality and correctness. 8. The main contention of the respective counsel appearing for the revision petitioners is that the recovery is not proved. No doubt, the receiver has not been examined before the Trial Court but the evidence of PW1, 2, 4, and 5 is clear that they went to Kerala at the instance of accused persons only and they showed the shop wherein they sold the stolen articles and the evidence of PW1, 2, 4 and 5 is consistent with regard to discovery of stolen articles at the instance of accused persons. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering the material available on record with regard to the recovery is concerned. 9. It is also not in dispute that the date of offence is 14/15.05.2003 and on the very next day the complainant came to know about the theft in his shop when he went to the shop. It is also the evidence of PW1 that based on the complaint, he along with other witnesses proceeded to Kerala and in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 nothing is elicited to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and PW1 and PW2 have not effectively cross-examined. Regarding recovery is concerned, PW1 elicited that door number was mentioned in the mahazar based on the document given by the owner of the shop i.e., CW4 and the said shop was licenced. It is also elicited that the watch which were kept for sale were not seized. It is not the case of the prosecution that, the stolen articles were kept for sale and no effective cross-examination was made in this regard. Regarding discovery and recovery is concerned, PW2 categorically says that the said shop was attached to the national highway and even he has given description of the shop that shop is facing on the eastern side and the national highway is facing on the southern side and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. 10. PW5-Circle Inspector also categorically deposed that after apprehending of accused persons and they led them to Kerala. No doubt, in the cross-examination, it is elicited with regard to place of arrest is concerned stating that while going towards Puttur, they apprehended accused persons but nothing is elicited in the cross-examination that they were not near the Sharma Watch Works and in the chief-evidence, he categorically deposed that accused persons were apprehended in front of Sharma Watch Works and other witnesses i.e., PW3 and PW4 also reiterates the same. It is rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State that the said minor discrepancy will not go to the root of the case. It is rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State that the said minor discrepancy will not go to the root of the case. The other contention of the petitioners counsel is that the receiver was not examined and no doubt, recovery was made at the instance of the owner of the shop but he has not examined but the evidence of PW1, 2, 4 and 5 is consistent with regard to the recovery is concerned and hence, non-examination of receiver will not take away the case of the prosecution. The main contention of the respective counsel for the parties is that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The only contradictions found in the evidence of PW5 with regard to the place of arrest and no doubt, though it is elicited that while going towards Puttur, accused persons were apprehended and the place of apprehension was on the way to the Puttur also not elicited from the mouth of PW5 by the accused counsel and the same cannot be a ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. 11. The complainant also produced the bills for having purchased the stolen articles and the very contention of the respective counsel is that there are contradictions and the same cannot be accepted since except the minor contradictions, nothing is on record. The evidence of PW1, 2, 4 and 5 that they are the official witnesses i.e., Investigating Officers and their evidences also inspires the confidence of the Court regarding apprehension of accused persons as well as the discovery made at the instance of the petitioners herein. 12. Having perused the judgment of the Trial Court, in paragraph 16 the Trial Court in detail discussed with regard to the evidences available on record and also observed that the prosecution is not only relying upon Ex.P3 alone to connect accused with crime and mahazar also marked as Ex.P4 regarding seizure is concerned. The oral as well as documentary evidence has been considered by the Trial Court. The oral as well as documentary evidence has been considered by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also taken note of the material available on record and from paragraphs 9 to 14 re-appreciated both the oral and documentary evidences regarding apprehension as well as discovery and seizure of stolen articles at the instance of these two petitioners and discovery statements were also considered as Ex.P29 and P29 which was made before PW5 and PW5 also speaks with regard to the discovery statement and taken note of the evidence of PW1, 2 who went to Kannanur-Thalacherry road of Kannanur and recovery is concerned and seized articles were also found in Ex.P5 to P9 – photographs and apart from that taken note of MOs which were marked as MO1 to MO10 which are identified by PW1 that these MOs were also stolen articles and when such being the materials available on record, both the Courts have given answers considering the same. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts and both the Courts have also taken note of the fact that accused No.2 is a habitual offender and he was also convicted in the similar type of cases. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of both the Courts. The revisional Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction only if the findings of both the Courts are perverse and in the case on hand, the same is not warranted as both the Courts have given correct finding and the Court has to assess the quality of the evidence and not the quantity as contended by the counsel for the petitioners regarding non-examination of other panch witnesses as well as non-examination of receiver. When the evidences of PW1 to 5 inspires the confidence of the Court, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts and I am of the opinion that the orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are not suffers from any legality or correctness. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petitions to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Point No.2: 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petitions are dismissed.