6.Taking this Court to the evidence of the mahazar witness as well as the Investigating Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this the case where the conviction is made only on the basis of recovery. As far as the recovery is concerned, there is material contradiction as to the place of recovery. In one place, it is mentioned as if the vehicle was recovered from the workshop of the Parasuraman, however, the observation mahazar says that the vehicle was recovered at the backyard of the house of the accused. In this connection, the learned counsel would submit that admittedly the prosecution on the same date pursuant to the confession of the petitioner / accused had recovered this motorcycle and the petitioner / accused was prosecuted in six (6) different cases pursuant to the same recovery. However, in respect of the six cases, four criminal Appeals preferred in C.A.No.2 of 2013, C.A.No.3 of 2013, C.A.No.4 of 2013 and C.A.No.7 of 2013 were all allowed vide judgment dated 23.04.2013 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in respect of C.C.No.410 of 2011, C.C.No.411 of 2011, C.C.No.412 of 2011 and C.C.No.415 of 2011 arising out of the same transaction. However, in respect of the two cases alone, the conviction was confirmed. The learned counsel would further submit that the manner of the charge and proof that including the delay in complaint are same and similar in all the 6 cases therefore when the accused has been acquitted on the ground that there is material contradictions in respect of the recovery which is the similar basis of conviction, this Court shall intervene in the present case also in exercise of its Revisionary Power.
