JUDGMENT : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. 1. This revision petition is moved against the concurrent judgments of the conviction and sentences passed against the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2008 dated 30.06.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in C.C.NO.711 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each. 2. The revisionists were the Accused Nos.1 & 2 and the respondents herein was the Sub-Inspector of Police represented by Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Motor vehicle of P.W.1/(M.O.1) was stolen on 08.07.2007 at about 4.00 P.M. from the parking area of the RTC Bus stand of Guntur District. It was recovered from the possession of the accused on 11.07.2007 at about 6:00 A.M by P.W.3 near Mani Hotel Center, Guntur. The accused failed to offer satisfactory reason for the possession of the vehicle with them. On the other hand, the accused are not claiming the ownership of the vehicle and have not explained possession of the vehicle. 4. The accused pleaded innocence of the offence. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 3as witnesses, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were the documents marked apart from the stolen motor bike (M.O.1). The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 5. After hearing both counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each. 6. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 2filed Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2008before the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. 6. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 2filed Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2008before the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. After hearing both the learned counsels and on appreciation of the material on record, the Learned Sessions Judge found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal code and confirmed the Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against them, the accused Nos.1 and 2preferred this present revision petition on the grounds that the learned Judges failed to appreciate the evidence in their perspective, that there is no direct witness to the occurrence, that the accused are not habitual offenders and no ingredients are made out to attract the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgments. 8. Heard Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the vehicle of P.W.1 was stolen by unknown persons. The prosecution alleges that the said vehicle was found in the possession of the accused. The accused are two members. Nothing is alleged against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in specific. P.W.2 is a stock mediator. No independent witness is examined to prove the seizure of the vehicle from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2.Except P.W.3 - the investigating officer, no other witness is available to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, in absence of such evidence, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. 10. Learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution was established the case against the accused, nobody can plan a motor bike for falsely impleading the accused Nos.1 and 2, no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgments and prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution was established the case against the accused, nobody can plan a motor bike for falsely impleading the accused Nos.1 and 2, no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgments and prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. Having heard the submissions of the both learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, now the point that would emerge for determination is : “Whether the learned Trial Judge and the learned Appellate Judge exercised Jurisdiction in a correct way or failed to exercise the Jurisdiction which they were supposed to do, if so, the impugned judgments are in correct lines or warrants in interference of this Court in revision?” 12. It is relevant to look into the ingredients essential to prove the offence under Section 411 IPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Trimbak v. State of M.P., (1953) 1 SCC 397, held as follows; “5. ….. It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under Section 411IPC to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property….” Emphasis supplied 13. Further, in relation to the presumption vide Section 114 (a), it is essential to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satnarain Sao v. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 881 in the following terms; “5. ……We may in this connection refer to a judgment of Lord Widgery C.J. in Atwal v. Massey [(1971) 3 All ER 881], in which it was laid down that in order to establish an offence under Section 22 of the (English) Theft Act 1968 which is similar in terms to Section 411 of the Penal Code, 1860 it was not sufficient to show that the goods had been received in circumstances which would have put a reasonable man on enquiry; the question was a subjective one; was the appellant aware of the theft or did he believe the goods to be stolen or did he, suspecting the goods to be stolen, deliberately shut his eyes to the circumstances?..... 6. 6. Section 114 provides that the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. Illustration (a) is as follows: that a person who is in possession of stolen property soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing that to be stolen unless he can account for his possession. In Otto George Gfeller v. King [ AIR 1943 PC 211 ], the law as enunciated in Rex v. Abramovitch. [(1914) 84 LJ (KB) 391] was accepted as representing the correct statement on the subject of the presumption to be drawn in such cases. That was in the following terms: “Upon the prosecution establishing that the accused were in possession of goods recently stolen they may in the absence of any explanation by the accused of the way in which the goods came into their possession which might reasonably be true find them guilty but that if an explanation were given which the jury think might reasonably be true, and which is consistent with innocence although they were not convinced of its truth the prisoners were entitled to be acquitted inasmuch as the prosecution would have failed to discharge the duty cast upon it of satisfying the court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.”” Emphasis supplied 14. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while identifying contours of revisional jurisdiction held thus; “12……The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that there visional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should no lead to injustice ex facie.” Emphasis supplied 15. This Court having noted the limits of revisional jurisdiction perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the prosecution alleges the evidence that M.O.1 was recovered from their possession, but from whose possession in specific the vehicle was seized, is not known. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 presented a written report to the police to the effect that on 08.07.2007 at about 4:00 PM near RTC Bus Stand at Guntur his motor bike bearing No. AP25 C 6238 was stolen by some unknown offenders. It is not the case where the Test Identification Parade was conducted wherein the P.W.1 identified accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also not the case of P.W.1 that he has seen while the accused were taken the vehicle. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer, who has seen the stolen bike of P.W.1 and immediately called P.W.2 to act as mediator and recovered the bike from their possession. There is no charge framed under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of each accused beyond all reasonable doubt to attract offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. 16. He would submit that in the present case, except the evidence of the P.W.2 that the vehicle is recovered from the accused, no other details are appropriate to corroborate the evidence of the P.W.2. In the Cross-Examination, P.W.2 stated that he also deposed in other cases as a mediator. Except the evidence of P.W.3 that he found the stolen vehicle of P.W.1 near Mani Hotel center, Guntur,P.W.1 atleast can identify his vehicle, but he cannot identify the accused. The offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code is not proved. In the Cross-Examination, P.W.2 stated that he also deposed in other cases as a mediator. Except the evidence of P.W.3 that he found the stolen vehicle of P.W.1 near Mani Hotel center, Guntur,P.W.1 atleast can identify his vehicle, but he cannot identify the accused. The offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code is not proved. It is apt to say that the presumption is in favour of prosecution under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since the stolen property found in the possession of accused, but it is not clear from whose possession the vehicle is recovered. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would urge that the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused, since the case is based on the circumstantial evidence. 17. As rightly pointed out, there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence, the recovery of motor bike from the possession of the accused is a crucial one to record the conviction against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Coming to the aspect of recovery, there is no clarity from whose possession, the bike was seized. P.W.3 didnot choose to secure independent witnesses at the time of seizure of the vehicle from the possession of the accused. Viewed from any angle, in the absence of charge under Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, the prosecution has to prove the guilt independently against each accused, which was not done in this case. In the light of the discussion referred supra, it is a fit case to interfere in the impugned judgments of conviction passed against the accused. 18. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of P.W.3 is clear to the effect that Accused No.1, left the police to his house at Bhavani Colony of Sampath Nagar where they found two motor cycles concerned to the crime property of Lalapeta Police Station and they have seized two motor cycles from the possession under the cover of the Mahazar as Ex.P.5. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, there is no whisper about any specific overt acts against Accused No.2, except saying that they found Accused No.1 and 2 with the motor bike at that center. So, the benefit of doubt shall be given to Accused No.2 in the absence of the specific overt acts against him. 19. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, there is no whisper about any specific overt acts against Accused No.2, except saying that they found Accused No.1 and 2 with the motor bike at that center. So, the benefit of doubt shall be given to Accused No.2 in the absence of the specific overt acts against him. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed acquitting Accused No.2 and confirming the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court relating to Accused No.1. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.