Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

1. Criminal leave to appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan under sub-Section (1) & (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27-06-1991 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 425/1983, whereby the accused persons Brahmanand and Lala Ram (respondents in this appeal) have been acquitted from charges levelled against them under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09-07-1980 at about 1:30 PM, Shri Jagmal Singh (PW-1) gave a written report (Ex. P-7) of Shri Shambhu Dutt Shastri, Incharge of Deodhi Khas, City Palace, Alwar to Indra Kumar (PW-9) stating therein that on inspection of Janana Mahal on 30-06-1980, it was found that a valuable carpet and three tables were missing, whereupon a FIR No. 287/1980 under Section 457 and 380 of IPC was registered and the investigation commenced. During investigation the accused/respondent Brahmanand and Lala Ram were arrested on 28-07-1980 vide Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10 respectively, and two carpets, one of which was like floor mat were recovered at the instance of the accused Lala Ram on 28-07-1980. A carpet was also recovered on 05-08-1980 from the house of Babli @ Yash Kumar (PW-2), at the instance of the accused Brahmanand. Further, footprints and fingerprints were taken from the spot. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused/respondents in the concerned Court. Charges were framed against the accused/respondents for offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/respondents. The accused/respondents pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried

3. In support of it's case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited some documents.

4. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused/respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused/respondents stated that they have been falsely implicated and no recovery was made at their instance. In defence, no witness was examined.

5. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents from the offence under Section 380 and 457 of IPC giving them benefit of doubt, vide impugned judgment dated 27-06-1991.

6. Being aggrieved with the said judgment dated 27-06-1991 passed by the learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has filed Leave to Appeal with Criminal Appeal. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and perusal of the record, the leave to appeal was allowed and it was ordered to register the appeal separately and accused/respondents be summoned through bailable warrant.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant, State of Rajasthan has contended that it is proved from the statement of Jagmal Singh (PW-1) that one valuable carpet and three tables were found missing from the Janana Mahal, Alwar on 30-06-1980. It is also clear from the statement of Jagmal Singh that one glass as fitted in the doors of the Janana Mahal, Alwar was found broken and after entering therein the footprints and fingerprints were also found. But the learned trial Court has erred in not believing the statement of Jagmal Singh (PW-1) on the premise that the story of broken glass and finding of footprints and fingerprints were not mentioned in the FIR, whereas, it is well settled law that each and every fact is not required to be mentioned in the FIR.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that statement of Jagmal Singh (PW-1) is corroborated by the statement of Daulat Singh (PW-5) and other witnesses, even then the learned trial Court did not believe on the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution and gave benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents. Therefore, impugned judgment is against the facts and law, and the same