(1.) Hori Lal was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 411, I.P.C. His conviction was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. Hori Lal was tried along with two other persons, namely, Thakur Prasad and Gajodhar. The two latter were tried for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C., whereas Hori Lal was tried for an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The facts appear to be that certain rods belonging to the Singh Engineering Company were loaded on a thela and were to be sent to the railway. While they were lying outside the premises of the company 25 of the rods on the thela disappeared and three of them were found on a patri in Bansmandi. The contractor and other servant of the company were investigating into the matter when they saw Gajodhar and Thakur Prasad trying to remove the three rods from the patri at Bansmandi. Thakur Prasad who is only a boy of 12 years was arrested on the spot but Gajodhar made good his escape and while Thakur Prasad was being taken he saw Gajodhar and pointed him out to the persons who were escorting Thakur Prasad. Gajodhar was also arrested and ultimately on the information of Thakur Prasad the house of one Hori Lal was searched and 22 iron rods of which 21 have been proved to belong to the Singh Engineering Co. were recovered from his house. The learned Magistrate by a curious reasoning which was not acceptable to the Judge and which is not acceptable to me acquitted Thakur Prasad and Gajodhar Prasad of an offence under Section 379, I.P.C; he has, however, convicted Hori Lal under Section 411, I.P.C.
(2.) In revision it is contended before me that the Courts below misdirected themselves on a question of law and as such the conviction recorded by them is not maintainable. It is argued that it is the duty of the prosecution in Section 411, I.P.C., to prove that the accused dishonestly received or retained stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The prosecution, therefore, has got to prove (1) that the property was stolen, (2) that it was received or retained by the accused and (3) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the property to be stolen. It is further contended that there is no such thing as shifting of the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused in a Criminal, case. It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council, in Basil Ranger Lawrence V/s. King AIR 1933 PC 218, that It is an essential principle of criminal law in English jurisprudence that a criminal charge has got to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
(3.) It was held in Hatim Mandal V/s. Emperor AIR 1920 Cal 342, that in a criminal case the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The onus never changes.