Budihal R.B., J.

This is the revision petition preferred by the State, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24th March, 2007 passed by the JMFC Court at Madikeri in C.C.No.388/2005 and also the order dated 19th September, 2014, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Crl. Appeal No.22/2008.

2. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents/ accused for the alleged offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, that on 9.10.2004 at about 10.00 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 with a common intention of committing theft have stolen two electric poles and three line wires installed to seven electric poles fixed at Korangala Reserve Forest. They have cut the electrical poles with axe blades and converted them into eight pieces and thereby, stolen the articles worth Rs.15,000/-. The accused persons have sold eight pieces of electric poles to CW4 and thereby, they have committed alleged offence. After investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet for the said offences.

To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8, produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P14 and material objects MOs 1 to 3 got marked and for the defence, no witnesses examined nor any documents produced. After considering the material placed on record, learned JMFC, Madikeri, acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 holding that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court. As there was a delay in preferring the appeal, application was also filed praying to condone the delay. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the grounds made out in the application so also the affidavit, ultimately, rejected the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal was also closed. Being aggrieved by the same, State is before this Court in this revision petition.

4. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the Revision Petitioner's/State.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission, that looking to the materials and the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. But even then, the Trial Court, wrongly held that prosecution failed to prove its case. Hence, he submitted, whatever the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the mouth of prosecution witnesses, clearly goes to show that case has been made out as against accused persons. Hence, he submitted that Trial Court is not correct in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the prosecution and ultimately to acquit the accused Nos. 1 to 3. So far as the order of the First Appellate Court on the delay application also, he made the submission that there is a delay of more than 192 days, but sufficient cause has been shown by the State as to why the appeal was not presented within the time and in spite of such sufficient cause has been shown, wrongly, the First Appellate Court rejected the application and thereby dismissed the appeal. Hence, he submitted that even the order passed by the First Appellate Court is also not sustainable in law. Hence, he submitted, matter requires consideration in this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent called out absent. No representation.

7. Perusing the judgment of the Trial Court, the Trial Court discussed the oral evidence of parties in detail. After the elaborate discussion with regard to the oral evidence adduced so also the documents produced in the case, the Trial Court held that prosecution has not proved its case to the satisfaction of the Court. Referring to the evidence of Panch witnesses PWs 5 and 6, they have identified their signature on Ex.P5, but as discussed by the Trial Court, it has observed that they categorically stated that no articles were seized in their presence. Therefore