Mere presence as a co-passenger in a stolen car does not constitute sufficient evidence to convict a person for the offense under Section 379, I. P. C. There must be evidence to show that the accused was involved in the theft.

R. S. VERMA, J.

( 1 ) LOOKING to the short point involved, the revision petition has been heard finally at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has been convicted of offence under Section 379, I. P. C. , by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 10 Jaipur City, Jaipur, and has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months vide judgment dated 18. 4. 1991. The petitioner went in appeal to learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who made over the appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, E. C. Act), Jaipur, for disposal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate. Aggrieved petitioners has come to this Court by way of revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 3 ) THE only evidence against the petitioner is that he was found travelling in a stolen car which was being driven by one Chiranjilal, co-accused. Chiranji Lal ran way with the car which was later on apprehended. Chiranji Lal was also tried for offence under Section 379, I. P. C. and was convicted and duly sentenced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because petitioner was travelling in stolen care, it does not mean that he had stolen the car. There is no other evidence on record to show that it was the accused-petitioner who had stolen the aforesaid car.

( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has not been able to refuse the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 5 ) I find that conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 379, I. P. C. is wholly improper and illegal. He could not have been convicted for offence under Section 379, I. P. C. on the ground that he was a co-passenger in the car which was stolen by co-accused Chiranji Lal.

( 6 ) NO other ground was urged before me. In view of the above discussion, I find that the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused-petitioner, Kailash Chand, cannot be sustained. The revision petition is accepted. The conviction of accused-petitioner Kailash Chand recorded under Section 379, I. P. C. is set aside and he is acquitted of Section 379 of the I. P. C. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Record of the learned Court below be returned if not required in any other case. Revision allowed.

.