The permissibility of drawing double presumption under law arises for consideration in this case.

2. The courts below concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed theft as alleged by the prosecution. The trial court sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellate court did not grant him any relief even in that regard. He has come up in revision. As the revision petitioner and counsel remained absent at the time of hearing, I did not have the occasion to hear them. Hearing the parties/counsel in revision is also optional under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the records.

4. The case was registered on the first information given by PW1 to the effect that on 210.1993 at about 6 a.m. while she was going for work, two persons came across her and snatched away her gold chains. She chased them but that was in vain. She reported the matter in the nearby house. PW11, the Sub Inspector arrested the first accused in connection with Crime No.723 of 1993 of his station on 12.1993 and when questioned the first accused is said to have disclosed the involvement of himself and the revision petitioner in the incident on hand. The revision petitioner was arrested and questioned by PW11. It is claimed that on the information given by the first accused and the revision petitioner, the stolen gold chains were discovered purportedly under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as per Exts.P2 and P1 mahazars, respectively on 12.1993.

5. PWs 1 to 3 did not identify the revision petitioner as one among the culprits. PW1 identified MO1 as one of the gold chains taken away from her. What then is available against the revision petitioner is only the evidence regarding the alleged discovery. According to the prosecution, the revision petitioner had told the Investigating Officer (PW11) that the gold chain is sold to PW7, a jewellery shop owner and if taken there, he will point out the shop and PW7 and accordingly, as lead by and along with the revision petitioner, the Investigating Officer came to PW7 who produced the gold chain which was seized as per Ext.P1. PW7 denied that he had purchased the gold chain from the revision petitioner. Instead, he claimed that he was summoned to the police station and was directed to produce one gold chain which he obliged. PW9, the Constable who accompanied PW11 for the alleged discovery gave evidence in tune with what is stated in Ext.P1. PW11, the Sub Inspector asserted that on the strength of the information given by the revision petitioner, he went to the shop of PW7 with the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner pointed out PW7 who, on questioning produced the gold chain (PW11 was not asked to identify the gold chain in court) which he seized as per Ext.P1. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding in this regard.

6. That, the information given by the revision petitioner only lead the Investigating Officer to PW7 (who in turn produced the gold chain) made no difference so far as the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned. "Fact" as defined in the Indian Evidence Act means –

"(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;

(2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious." (see Section 3) "Fact" as understood in the Indian Evidence Act includes physical fact as well as psychological fact or mental condition. The basic principle of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The information which lead to the discovery of a witness to whom the accused had given the stolen article is also a discovery of fact. (see Raveendran & others v. State (1989 (2) KLJ 534).

7. Records of the case show that the Investigating Officer had not separately extracted in black and white the information given by the revision petitioner and which ultimately lead to the discovery of the gold chai