ORDER : UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present Criminal Revision Petition, has assailed the judgment and order 03.08.2011, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Crl.A. 10/2011, dismissing the said appeal and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 05.04.2011 st passed by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Morigaon convicting the petitioner, herein under Section 379 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo SI for 2 (two) months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief is that one Suman Swargiary lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge Morigaon Police Station on 30.07.2007 and therein, had lodged that on 29.07.2007 his bi-cycle was stolen by some unknown person when he was playing football. It was further alleged that on 30.07.2007, at about 10.00 am when he had come out from college, he had seen the petitioner, herein, riding his bi-cycle, towards Morigaon town and he apprehended him and handed him over to police station. The police on receipt of the said FIR registered the case being Morigaon P.S. Case No.169/2007 under Section 379 /411. The police on completion of investigation, filed the Charge-Sheet against the petitioner herein and one Babu Ali. The Trial Court, thereafter, framed charge under Section 379 /411 IPC against the said accused persons including the petitioner, herein. On the charge being read over and explained to the accused petitioner, the co-accused Babu Ali pleaded guilty to the charge and he was thereafter convicted and sentenced. In so far as the petitioner, herein is concerned, he had pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried and accordingly, a trial is ensued. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 5 (five) witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 05.04.2011 on appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded to convict the petitioner herein under Section 379 IPC and sentenced the petitioner as noticed, hereinabove. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 5 (five) witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 05.04.2011 on appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded to convict the petitioner herein under Section 379 IPC and sentenced the petitioner as noticed, hereinabove. The petitioner being aggrieved with the conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting the criminal appeal being Crl.A. No. 10/2011 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon. The leaned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 03.08.2011, to dismiss the said Appeal and thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner herein by the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Revision Petition. 5 . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. On perusal of the evidences coming on record, it is evident that the same reveals that the stolen bi-cycle of the informant, was recovered from the petitioner, herein, on 30.07.2007. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had proceeded to consider the issue as to whether the petitioner, herein, had stolen the bi-cycle, in question. On such appreciation of the evidences and by applying the provision of Section 144(a) of the EVIDENCE ACT , proceeded to draw a presumption that the petitioner, herein, had stolen the bi-cycle, in question. Such presumption was drawn only basing on the recovery of the said bi-cycle from the possession of the petitioner, herein. The evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial also included the deposition made therein, by one Abdul Hannan as PW-5. Abdul Hannan during his deposition, had deposed that the petitioner, herein, had bought the bi-cycle, by way of execution of sale deed and he was also a witness to the same. He further deposed that the petitioner, herein, would not have bought the bi-cycle had he known the same to be stolen. 7. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence adduced by PW- 5 held that he falls in the category of unreliable witness, on the ground that the sale document was not exhibited in support of the case of the accused herein. 7. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence adduced by PW- 5 held that he falls in the category of unreliable witness, on the ground that the sale document was not exhibited in support of the case of the accused herein. On careful examination of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution witness No.5 had deposed that the petitioner, herein, had purchased the by-cycle by paying Rs.1,150/- 1200/- from the co- accused Babu Ali. This Court also finds that the other witness deposing in the matter had not bought on record any material to demonstrate that the said bi-cycle was stolen by the petitioner, herein. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, herein, had reiterated the fact that he had purchased the cycle. 8. The above being the position, the evidences coming on record having not demonstrated that the petitioner, herein, had stolen the bi-cycle in question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no evidence available on record for the Trial Court, to draw presumption under Section144(a) of the EVIDENCE ACT , in the matter against the petitioner, herein. 9. It is a settled position of law that although the recovery of stolen items are made, the prosecution is required to establish the essential ingredients of knowledge of the appellant that such goods were stolen property. The evidences brought on record having not demonstrated that the petitioner, herein had the knowledge that the bi-cycle in question, to be stolen, when he had purchased the same, it was not permissible for the learned Trial Court even to hold that the offence under Section 411 IPC was established against the petitioner, herein. 10 . This Court has already noticed that there was no material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was involved in the theft of the said bi-cycle and the bi-cycle admittedly was stolen by the co-accused Babu Ali. 11 . In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court and basing therein holding the petitioner, herein, guilty of the offence under Section 379 IPC to be not sustainable. 11 . In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court and basing therein holding the petitioner, herein, guilty of the offence under Section 379 IPC to be not sustainable. The Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2011, while proceeding to hold the conviction of the petitioner, herein under Section 379 IPC, is found to have failed to appreciate the fact that there was no evidences available on record to hold the petitioner, herein, to be guilty of the offence under Section 379 IPC. Accordingly, the said judgment dated 03.08.2011 would mandate interference. 12. In view of the conclusion drawn by this Court, this Court proceeds to set aside and quash the judgment and order dated 05.04.2011 passed by st the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Morigaon in G.R. Case No. 794/2007 along with the judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Crl.A. No. 10/2011. 13 . The petitioner herein is acquitted of the charge under Section 379 IPC. The bail bond of the petitioner stands discharged. 14 . Registry to send down the records to the learned Trial Court forthwith.