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 pet