1. The applicant was the accused no.4 in Regular Criminal Case No.110 of 2008 which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railway Court, Pune. The allegation against the applicant was that, he had committed an offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the other three accused i.e. Accused no.1 Sandeep, Accused No.2 Harish and Accused no.3 Nilesh was that they had committed an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the IPC. The trial resulted in conviction of all the accused, including the applicant. The Magistrate sentenced all the accused – including the applicant to suffer RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each in default to suffer SI for one month.

2. The applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions, challenging his conviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned Magistrate. The Addl. Sessions Judge Pune, who heard the appeal, however, upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, convicting and sentencing the applicant, and the order of dismissal of his appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present revision application.

3. It may be mentioned that there were five more cases against the applicant and the said three accused before the Magistrate and in those cases also, the applicant and the said other accused were similarly convicted and sentenced. The appeals filed by the applicant against his conviction in those cases, were also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. In those matters also, the applicant has approached this Court by filing similar applications for revision. Those revision applications were also heard along with the present one, and they are also being disposed of, by separate orders.

4. The prosecution case, as put forth before the Magistrate, was as follows:-

On 29 October 2007, at about 1.30 p.m, one Smt. Savita was travelling from Pune to Daund by Nanded Passenger. She was occupying a seat near the window. As soon as the train left the Pune station, somebody snatched the gold mangalsutra which she was wearing around her neck. It was snatched by somebody by putting his hand inside the window of the boogie of the said train. Savita raised cries and thereafter, the passengers pulled the chain for stopping the train. The train stopped. However, Savita did not do anything on that day but, proceeded to Daund. On the next day, she lodged a report with the Pune Railway Police, which was treated as the First Information Report (Exhibit 21). On 28 July 2008, the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were arrested by Head Constable Mr. Luis Makasare – PW 4, attached to LCB Railway Police, in some other case. During the course of investigation of the said case, pursuant to the information disclosed by the Accused no.3 – Nilesh, nine gold ingots of different sizes and weights were recovered from the possession of the applicant. These ingots were said to be the property involved in various crimes and was accordingly, seized. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted in the present case, as also in the aforesaid other cases; and the applicant and the other accused were prosecuted as aforesaid and convicted.

5. It is contended by Mr. A.H.H. Ponda, learned counsel for the applicant that the conviction of the applicant came to be recorded without any legal evidence. He submitted that there was absolutely no case for holding the applicant guilty. According to him, the identity of the property allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, was not at all established to be the stolen property, and that on this count itself, the charge against the applicant could not have been held to be proved.

6. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction. It is also well settled that in revisional jurisdiction, this Court does no