ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of applicant for offence of Section 379 IPC for a term of simple imprisonment of 1 year. The applicant was convicted vide judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed in RCT No.2369/2015 by J.M.F.C. Khandwa and was sentenced accordingly. This judgment was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.110/2022 before Sessions Judge Khandwa, but the appeal was dismissed on 25.07.2023. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as the motorcycle of complainant Vijay Kalosia bearing registration no.MP-12/MF-1348 of the make of Hero Honda CD Delux was stolen in the intervening night of 15th and 16th July, 2014. The complainant looked for the motorcycle for two days in the nearby places but he couldn’t trace it. Thereafter, he went to Harda for his personal errand and coming back from Harda, again he searched for the motorcycle. As he could not trace it, he lodged a report in the police station, on the basis of which offence under Section 379 of IPC was registered at Crime No.475/2014 and was taken up for investigation. Information was obtained from police station Kotwali Betul that this stolen motorcycle was recovered alongwith other vehicles from the present applicant on the basis of suspicion.

The said motorcycle was seized in this offence of theft and the applicant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the trial followed. Upon conclusion of trial applicant was held guilty and sentenced by the trial Court. The judgment was appealed against but appeal was dismissed.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that the applicant never committed theft of any motorcycle and no case of Section 379 of IPC was made out against him. The alleged theft of motorcycle was informed to the police with a delay of almost 10-12 days after the incident and particularly after the vehicle was already seized by the police. A false story was prepared about theft and seizure. The statements of prosecution witnesses were contradictory to each other and also to the facts mentioned in FIR. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment and findings of the Courts below being illegal and erroneous be set aside and the applicant be acquitted.

4. This criminal revision has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment which would justify intervention in this criminal revision. It is, therefore, prayed that this criminal revision should be dismissed.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the records of the courts below have been perused.

6. This case is relating to theft of a motorcycle by an unknown person, registration of crime against an unknown person and recovery of motorcycle from the applicant. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant Vijay Kalosia (PW1), Constable Ganesh Rao (PW2), Ajay Barvade (PW3) and Vinay (PW4), who were posted in Police Station Kotwali Betul, Ramesh Pawar (PW5), who started the investigation in the registered crime in police station Kotwali Khandwa, Bhagwat Pandey (PW6), who has testified on behalf of I.O. of this case namely ASI Narayan Bhargav posted at P.S. Kotwali Khandwa and Sanjay Raghuwanshi Head Constable posted in P.S. Kotwali Betul who made the seizure of stolen motorcycle from the possession of applicant. Defence has not examined any witness in the case. 7. Ex.P1 is the FIR which suggests that the incident of theft of motorcycle happened in the intervening night of 15th and 16th July, 2014 but the incident was reported to the police on 22.07.2014. The delay was assigned to the fact that complainant Vijay was searching for the motorcycle by himself and he also had to go outstation in the intervening period, but when asked about this delay during his cross-examination complainant Vijay has put up an altogether different story. In his stateme