Theft under the Indian Penal Code can be established based on witness testimony and recovery of stolen property, and the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this revision petition, petitioner/accused has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 19-P/2003 dated 05.12.2007, vide which learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present petitioner, upheld the judgment passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, in Criminal Case No. 168-II/2001 dated 26.05.2003, whereby learned trial Court while convicting the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code alongwith co-accused Mehar Singh, sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine, both to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

2. At this stage, it may be stated that when this revision petition was filed by the petitioner, he had appended with the revision petition a copy of judgment passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur in Criminal Case No. 176-II/2002 decided on 02.06.2003, vide which also the present petitioner alongwith co-accused Mehar Singh was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. However, as far as the present revision petition is concerned, it arose out of Criminal Case No. 168-II/2001 decided by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, on 26.05.2003 and a certified copy of the said judgment was later on placed on record vide Cr.M.P. No. 1383 of 2016.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are that as per the prosecution, on 04.04.2001 reporter Chander Shekhar alongwith his friends Abhishek Sood and Kapil Sood had gone to Neugal Café Palampur in their Esteem Car bearing registration No. HP-37-0054 around 9.15 P.M. The car was parked by Chander Shekhar outside Neugal Cafe and accused persons who were travelling in Van bearing registration No. PCM No. 131 and were following the car of Chander Shekhar, also reached near Neugal Cafe and also parked their Van outside the Neugal Cafe. The accused persons entered Neugal Cafe, consumed a bottle of beer and thereafter, left the Cafe. At about 10.30 P.M. when complainant Chander Shekhar alongwith his friends came outside Neugal Cafe, they found that their vehicle was missing. The complainant apprehended his suspicion on those two persons who were occupants of Van PCM No. 131, which had followed them. As the complainant could not find his vehicle despite searching for it, he lodged a complaint at Police Station Palampur, where his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Further, as per the prosecution, in the course of the search of missing car on 05.04.2001 when the police party alongwith complainant Chander Shekhar, Arvind Kumar and Abhishek Sood were present at Bhattoo, one car similar to the stolen car of the complainant came, which was being driven from the side of Bhattoo. This car was stopped for the purpose of inquiry. The same was driven by accused No. 1, whereas present petitioner Om Parkash was also sitting in the said car. The car in issue was having fictitious number plate affixed to it bearing No. DL-2CK-5835. When the said car was checked by the police, number plate of the stolen car of the complainant bearing No. HP-37-0054 as well as registration certificate and insurance of the said car were recovered. The stolen car was produced by the petitioner before the police in presence of the witnesses which was accordingly taken into possession by the police. Maruti Van in which the accused had followed the complainant was also taken into possession from village Bundla and the said car was also got recovered by the accused.

4. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, they were charged for commission of