ORDER :

Heard Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.5.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2012, arising out of G.R. Case No. 1518 of 2007 (T.R. NO. 95 of 2012), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th January, 2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 1518 of 2007, corresponding to T.R. No. 95 of 2012. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro has convicted the petitioners under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 414 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further directed the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned trial court has also passed sentence under Section 120B IPC against all the accused persons to undergo R.I. for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned judgments, submits that there are three petitioners before this Court, who have been convicted for offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal code and have been punished for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each with default clause. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 120- B of IPC for a period of rigorous imprisonment of one year. She submits that on the spot, petitioner Nos.-2 and 3 who were the driver and khalasi respectively, were arrested and the petitioner No.-1 has been made accused on account of the fact that the seized goods and vehicle belonged to him. She submits that seizure witnesses have not been examined before the learned court below and accordingly, seizure has not been proved. She also submits that there were altogether four prosecution witnesses; out of them, three were the members of the raiding party and fourth one was the Investigating Officer of the case (P.W.-3). She submits that the petitioner No.-1 had produced certain documents as Ext.-A, B and C to show that the goods were purchased and were being transported by way of sale. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner No.-1 was having a factory. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no corresponding theft report and in absence of theft report, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 414 of IPC is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the petitioner No.-1 did not have any license to deal with the metal brass, which was seized and even if, the document produced by the petitioner No.-1 is taken into consideration, 100 Kgs of brass scrap remained unaccounted. He submits that Ext.-A and C were marked with objection. He also submits that it was the case of the defence that the goods were sold to one Bishwanath Haldar, but said Bishwanath Haldar has not been examined before the learned court below. He has also submitted merely because there is no theft report, the same does not make the impugned judgments perverse. He has also submitted that so far as the seizure witnesses are concerned, their non-examination is not fatal, as the other witnesses have fully supported the seizure and also the arrest of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on the spot. The learned counsel, at the end, submits that there is no illegality of perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below calling for any interference in the present case.

Findings of the Court

6. As per the prosecution case, the informant ASI namely Shashi Bhusan Choudhary has given written report before police stating tha