M.G. GIRATKAR, J.

1. The present revision is against the judgment of conviction, dated 27th January, 2015 awarded by 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur in R.C.C. No. 480 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 457 of the Indian Penal Code by which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for eight days. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for eight days.

2. The applicant/accused challenged the said judgment before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2015. Learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence. In stead of three years, conviction for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code is altered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and two years for the offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and enhanced fine of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Both the sentences are under challenge in the present appeal.

3. The case of the applicant/accused in short, is as under:

On 10.01.2014, complainant locked his shop at 08:30 p.m. and went to his home. On next day i.e. 11th January, 2014, at about 09:00 a.m. when complainant went to his shop, he saw that both the locks of shutter were broken. The drawer of counter was also opened. He found that Rs. 1000/- which were kept in the drawer, were stolen. On the same day, he lodged report in the City Police Station, Chandrapur. Crime No. 13 of 2014 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officer visited the spot of incident and prepared spot panchnama. There was CCTV camera. On the basis of CCTV footage, Investigating Officer arrested the accused. His disclosure statement was recorded. After completing investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the JMFC. Charge was framed at Exh.3. The prosecution has examined four witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution and defence, learned JMFC convicted applicant/accused as stated above.

4. Heard Smt. S.P. Dhotre, learned Counsel (appointed) appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri C.A. Lokhande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.

5. Smt. Dhotre, learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out cross-examination of Investigating Officer (PW-3) and submitted that the printout of CCTV footage was produced before the Court. As per the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, this evidence is not admissible. Learned Counsel has submitted that there is no other evidence to show that the applicant committed house breaking and committed theft of Rs. 1,000/-. Learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court not considered the same and wrongly convicted the accused. In support of her submission, learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Balasaheb Gurling Todkari and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (3) Bom. CR (Cri) 51. At last, she submitted that without any cogent evidence, applicant came to be convicted. Therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.

6. Shri Lokhande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the revision and supported the judgments impugned in the instant revision.

7. Perused the evidence on record. Evidence of PW-1 (complainant) shows that in the night of incident i.e. 09.01.2014, he locked his shop and went to his house. On the next day morning, when he came to shop, he found both the lock