HASTIMAL ASALDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The elite amongst the word of pilferers and their associates will be as keenly interested as the academician in the question placed in the centre of the perspective which does not appear to have been pointedly raised very often so far. Is it essential in order to establish an offence under sec. 414 of the Indian Penal Code to show that the property in relation to which the culprit rendered voluntary assistance in the matter of concealing or making away was in fact proved to be stolen property ? What requires to be placed in focus is the crucial difference in the wording of these two sections which might make a world of difference. The aspect which I have in mind is the one stemming from the circumstance that sec. 411 relating to dishonest receiving of stolen property in express terms makes it essential for the prosecution to establish that the property in question must be stolen property (see the opening part of sec. 411). If in juxtaposition with sec. 411 a glance is now stolen at sec. 414 it will be observed that the said section (as it appears to me:- advisedly and deliberately) makes a departure by omitting the expression stolen property and by employing the expression property which the offender knows or has reason to believe in the stolen property. It would therefore prima facie appear that the essential ingredient to establish in order to bring home the guilt for an offence under sec. 411 is that the property in question was stolen property whereas so far as sec. 414 is concerned the Legislature did not insist or require the prosecution to establish that the property was in fact stolen property. It would appear that so far as sec. 414 is concerned it is sufficient for the prosecution to satisfy the Court that the property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed appears to be stolen property or in respect of which the Court has reason to believe that it is a stolen property without establishing whether in fact it is stolen from where it is stolen when it is stolen and who has stolen or how i has been stolen. But before this interesting question is placed under the microscope for arriving at the true interpretation by correct analysis the facts in the background of which this question arises require to be stated. [The Honble Court after discussing the evidence observed :-]

(2.) With regard to the 16 bales I have already recorded a finding that there is reason to believs that these goods are stolen goods. I have also recorded the finding that having regard to the cumulative effect of the circumstances discussed earlier there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant also had reason to believe that these were stolen goods. The question then is whether the appellant can be convicted in this connection for an offence under sec. 414 of the Indian Penal Code. And it is in this background that the question as regards the true interpretation of sec. 414 and the ingredients required to be established to bring home an offence under that section arises. In order to bring into tutus the point at issue secs. 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code require to be quoted and studied in juxtaposition. When quoted along with marginal notes the sections read as under:- Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

(3.) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Assisting in concealment of stolen property.