STATE Vs. ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State against the Sessions Judges order acquitting the accused in sessions case No.3 of 1953 on the file of the Anjikaimal Sessions Court. The accused stood charged with having committed the offence punishable under S. 413 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution the accused has been habitually receiving stolen articles with the knowledge that they were stolen articles, or at least under circumstances in which he had every reason to believe that they were stolen articles. From the wording of S. 413 it is clear that for establishing the offence under the section, it is essential that there must be evidence in proof of the four elements constituting the offence, viz., that (1) the articles stated to have been received by the accused were stolen property, (2) that he received such articles, (3) that he has been receiving them frequently or habitually and (4) that he was receiving them knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen articles. On the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the first three points against the accused. But on the fourth point the conclusion reached by him was that the explanation given by the accused as to how he happened to come into possession of these articles, was acceptable and that it could not be said that the accused had received these articles knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen property. The appeal challenges the correctness and the sustainability of the learned Sessions Judges finding on this point.

(2.) The accused is a merchant dealing in second-hand hardware goods and he has his shop near the Padma Talkies at Ernakulam. Evidence has been adduced in this case to show that between the years 1950 and 1952 this accused has received stolen articles involved in 14 theft cases. Exts. J. VII, VI, AJ, AC, AD, AA, AB, AE, W, AP, Z, AH and C are copies of the judgments in these 14 cases. These cases may be conveniently classified under three groups, viz., (1) cases in which this accused also stood charged for the offence of having dishonestly received the property in question, knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen property, punishable under S. 411 of the Penal Code, but was ultimately acquitted of the charge under that section; (2) cases in which this accused was convicted of the offence under S. 411, and (3) cases in which this accused gave evidence as a witness on the side of the prosecution in proof of the fact that the articles recovered in those cases happened to be in his possession as having been purchased by him from the persons who stood charged with the offence of having committed theft of the same.

(3.) The cases evidenced by Exts. AA, AB, AC, AD, VI and VII fall under the first group. In all these cases it was definitely found that the articles recovered from the possession of this accused were stolen property which he had purchased from his coaccused who were convicted of the offence of theft in respect of such articles. But on the question of this accuseds knowledge as to whether they were stolen articles or not, the court appears to have given him the benefit of doubt and to have acquitted him in respect of the charge under S. 411 that had been levelled against him. Ext. J, AJ and AE are the judgments in the cases coming under the second group. In these three cases it was found that all the ingredients of the offence under S. 411 had been clearly made out against this accused and accordingly he was convicted in all these three cases on 30th December 1950, 7th January 1951 and 30th October 1951 respectively. The decisions in the cases falling under these two groups cannot be made the basis of the present charge under S. 413. In fact the prosecution has no case that the charge under S. 413 can be sustained on the basis of these decisions. The judgments in these cases have been produced merely for the purpose of proving that in all these nine cases, the respondent accused had to face a trial for the offence under S. 411, that the articles recovered in all these cases from his custody were as a matter of fact proved to have been articles stolen by the other accused in those cases and who were convicted of the offence of theft, and that in three of these cases this accused was also convicted of the offence under S. 411.