The charges against the petitioner who was the first accused in the lower Court were in the alternative, (1) under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, that he broke into the house of P.W.1 and committed theft of a bicycle and (2) that he dishonestly possessed M.Os. 2 and 3, a dynamo and a light, which formed part of the bicycle alleged to have been stolen. The conviction itself was with reference to the second of the charges, punishable under section 411, Indian Penal Code. The conviction was confirmed on appeal. Hence this petition for revision.

The bicycle was missed from the house of P.W.1 on 6th December, 1946. That it must have been stolen, can admit of no doubt. The bicycle itself was abandoned. Only the light snd the dynamo were removed. The petitioner was arrested on 27th June, 1947. On that day the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded Exhibit P-3. The case for the prosecution was that the statements made by the petitioner in Exhibit P-3 led to the discovery of M.O. 2 from P.W.4 and the recovery of M.O.3 from accused 2. P.W.4 gave evidence that the petitioner sold M.O.2 to him about four months before he gave evidence in August, 1947.

The substantial question that arise