Dinesh Mishra Alias Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 1270 of 2016

Dinesh Mishra @ Dinesh Kumar Mishra, son of Late Rajdhar Mishra, Resident of Village + P.O.- Kaswa, P.S.- Meharma, District – Godda … … Petitioner -Versus-

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP ---

¶8

11 /27.08.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶9

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶10

3. The learned trial court vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.02.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar at Chaibasa in connection with Jhinkpani P.S. Case No.08 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 174 of 2010 (T.R. No.30 of 2016) had convicted the petitioner alongwith Naresh Rai for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter referred to as IPC ) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

¶11

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, but there was no theft report in connection with the articles which are said to have been recovered from the truck of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle; rather, it was being driven by the driver, who is the main culprit in connection with the recovery of iron ore from the truck. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been punished with rigorous imprisonment of two years and has faced the criminal case since 2010 and more than 14 years have elapsed from the date of the incident and the incident is of 10.04.2010. The

¶12

learned counsel submitted that some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be reduced as no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 414 of IPC.

¶13

5. The learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in order to convict a person for the offence under Section 414 of IPC, there is no need to have a theft report. The ownership of the vehicle with the petitioner is not in dispute and the seizure was duly proved by concurrent findings recorded by both the courts. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be absolved of his liability under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submitted that so far as the sentence is concerned, it is for the court to consider the same, but considering the nature of offence, some heavy fine amount be also imposed against the petitioner. She referred to Section 414 of IPC and submitted that the maximum sentence is three years or fine or both.

¶14

6. The prosecution case is based on the written report dated 11.04.2010, lodged by the Informant namely, A.S.I. Ramlal Ram alleging that on 10.04.2010 at about 1900 hours, when the Informant alongwith other police personnel were on patrolling duty at Talaburu Pitch Road, he received secret information about two trucks loaded with illegally mined iron ores from Noamundi forest area. Thereafter, the Informant and the police party intercepted Truck Nos.JH05G-4913 and OR05E-8349 near Harish Line Hotel at about 08::00 P.M., but the drivers of both the trucks fled away taking advantage of the forest area. On search, Truck No. JH05G-4913 was found loaded with 10 tons of iron ores and some documents i.e. tax token, fitness certificate, registration certificate in the name of the petitioner, road permit, pollution certificate, policy certificates, weighment challan and driving licence of Roshan Kumar Jha were also found in the truck. Truck No. OR05E-8349 was also found loaded with 10 tons of iron ores. The articles recovered from both the trucks were seized and a seizure list was prepared in presence of two local independent witnesses namely, Surendra Paswan and Pinku Biruli.

¶15

2

¶16

7. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as Jhinkpani P.S. Case No.08 of 2010 dated 11.04.2010 under Section 414 of IPC and Section 33 of the Forest Act against Dinesh Kumar Mishra, the owner of Truck No. JH05G-4913, said Roshan Kumar Jha, whose driving licence was recovered from the Truck No.JH05G4913 and the owner and driver of Truck No. OR05E-8349. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No.04/2011 dated 31.01.2011 under Section 414 of IPC, Sections 33, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 4/21 of M.M.(D.R.) Act against the petitioner, the driver-cum-owner of Truck No.JH05G-4913 and Naresh Rai, the driver-cum-owner of Truck No.OR05E-8349. Thereafter, on 22.02.2011, cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the same sections.

¶17

8. On 27.06.2011, charges under Section 414 of IPC, Sections 33, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 4/21 of M.M.(D.R.) Act against the petitioner and Naresh Rai which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶18

9. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses to substantiate the charges. PW-1 is Havaldar Rajendra Paswan, PW-2 is A.S.I. Ranjit Thakur, PW-3 is A.S.I. Ramlal Ram who is the Informant of the case, PW-4 is Sakaldeep Singh who is the second Investigating Officer of the case, PW-5 is Prabhat Kumar Singh who is the first Investigating Officer of the case, PW-6 is Pinku Biruli who is a seizure list witness, but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW-7 is Sano Mahto.

¶19

10. The prosecution exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-1, signature of PW-6 (seizure list witness) on the seizure list as Exhibit1/1, written report as Exhibit-2, formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3 and the writing of Police Gajadhar Singh on the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3/1. The prosecution exhibited the tax token, fitness certificate, photocopy of registration certificate, photocopy of goods carriage, pollution certificate, two copies of consignment, insurance paper containing

¶20

3

¶21

three pages and driving licence as Material Exhibits- I to VI, VI/1, VII, VII/1, VII/2 and VIII.

¶22

11. PW-1 was a member of the patrolling party and he has fully supported the prosecution case. He deposed that on 10.04.2010, he was posted at Tonto police station. He has supported the facts that both Truck Nos. JH05G-4913 and OR05E-8349 loaded with 10 tons of iron ores in each truck were intercepted at Matagutu, near Harish Line Hotel and the drivers had fled away. On search of Truck No. JH05G-4913, papers of the vehicle were recovered and seized and a seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses. During crossexamination, he admitted that he had not seen the accused persons and he does not identify them.

¶23

12. PW-2 was also a member of the patrolling party and he has fully supported the prosecution case. He deposed that on 10.04.2010, he was posted at Tonto police station. He deposed that the patrolling party had intercepted the Truck Nos. JH05G-4913 and OR05E-8349 and each truck was loaded with 10 tons of iron ores. On search, documents of the vehicle were found in Truck Nos. JH05G-4913, but no paper was available related to the iron ore and no document was found in the second vehicle. Seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence which bears the signatures of the independent witnesses namely, Upendra Paswan and Pinku Biruli. He exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-1. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not signed in the seizure list and the case number was filled in the police station, but the seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence.

¶24

13. PW-3 is the Informant of the case. He was also a member of the patrolling party. He deposed that on the basis of secret information, the police party had intercepted the Truck Nos. JH05G-4913 and OR05E-8349, but the drivers had fled away taking advantage of the darkness. Truck No. JH05G-4913 was found to be loaded with 10 tons of iron ores and tax token, attested copies of registration, challan, permit, etc. were found in the truck. The registration certificate contains the name of the petitioner. He exhibited the seized papers as

¶25

4

¶26

Material Exhibits- I to VI, VI/1, VII, VII/1, VII/2 and VIII. He further deposed that the second vehicle was also loaded with 10 tons of iron ores, but no paper was found in the truck. The documents and the vehicles were seized and a seizure list was prepared and signatures of two independent witnesses were taken. He exhibited the written report as Exhibit-2 and the formal FIR as Exhibit-3. During crossexamination, he admitted that he had not got the vehicle weighed and on the basis of the consignment, he mentioned the weight as 10 tons. He further admitted that he had not mentioned the size of the iron ores in the seizure list and he had not collected any sample of the iron ores from the vehicle. He also admitted that he is not an expert of identifying the minerals and the place of occurrence is situated outside his jurisdiction and before seizure, he had not informed the Jhinkpani police station.

¶27

14. PW-4 is the Second Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that he had received the charge of investigation of the case on 31.07.2010 from Prabhat Kumar Singh, the Officer-in-charge (PW-5). He deposed that on the applications of the truck owners, he had released the trucks to their owners namely, Dinesh Kumar Mishra and Naresh Rai. He had submitted Charge-sheet No.04/2011 dated 31.01.2011. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not recorded the statement of the witnesses and had also not inspected the place of occurrence.

¶28

15. PW-5 is the first Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that on 10.04.2010, he was posted as the Officer-in-charge of Jhinkpani police station and he had himself taken the charge of investigation of the case. He identified the formal FIR which was already exhibited as Exhibit-3 and he exhibited the writing of Police Gajadhar Singh on the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3/1. He further deposed that he had taken the re-statement of the Informant and the statements of the witnesses including the seizure list witnesses and he had inspected the place of occurrence. The D.T.O. had reported that Naresh Rai is the owner of Truck No. OR05E-8349. On his transfer, he had handed over the charge of investigation to Sakaldeep Singh.

¶29

5

¶30

During his cross-examination, he admitted that in course of investigation, he had not found any witness who had seen the materials while loading and the accused persons driving the vehicles and he did not get the materials loaded in the trucks examined and did not get the materials weighed. He further admitted that he had not investigated as to where the theft of the iron ores was committed and he had not received any theft report of the iron ores. The accused persons have been made accused in the case as they are owners of the vehicles and no other evidence was found during investigation.

¶31

16. PW-6 is the one of the seizure list witnesses. He exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1/1. He stated that nothing was seized in his presence and he does not know anything about the occurrence and the police had not enquired him. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. During cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied that he had given statement that 10 tons of iron ores and documents were recovered from Truck No.JH05G-4913. During cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that when he was coming from his duty, his signature was taken by the side of the road but he does not know what was written on the paper.

¶32

17. PW-7 was also a member of the patrolling party. He deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted at Tonto police station and he had gone with bara babu on patrolling. One truck loaded with iron ores was found parked at Jhinkpani. Documents were demanded and writing works was done. During cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know as to which case is related to which vehicle. The police had recorded his statement.

¶33

18. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 03.07.2015, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and stated that his truck was not loaded and Sri Prabhat Singh had seized the truck on the basis of suspicion. He accepted that he is the owner of the truck and the truck has been released in his favour. He claimed to be innocent.

¶34

6

¶35

19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner is the owner of Truck No. JH05G-4913 which was intercepted by the police party on 10.04.2010 and the truck was found loaded with 10 tons of iron ores, but the driver of the truck fled away from the place of occurrence. The truck of the petitioner along with iron ores and other documents were seized and a seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence and thereafter, the case was registered. As per PW-4 (second investigating officer), on the application of the petitioner, he had released the truck to the petitioner. As per the application of the petitioner, he was also the driver of the truck on the date of occurrence. The petitioner did not produce any document in connection with the iron ores seized from his truck.

¶36

20. This Court further finds that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 Informant were members of the patrolling party which had seized the truck of the petitioner loaded with iron ores and they have fully supported the prosecution case. PW-6 is a seizure list witness and although he has been declared hostile by the prosecution, he has identified and exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1/1. PW-4 and PW-5, both Investigating Officers have also supported the prosecution case. The defence has failed to elicit anything to discredit the testimony of PWs-1 to 5.

¶37

21. This Court further finds that both the learned courts have found that the vehicle of the petitioner being a truck was carrying 10 tons of iron ores without any proper documents. Certainly, the vehicle was being driven by the driver, but the driver of the truck ran away from the place of occurrence. The seizure of the iron ores has been duly considered by the learned courts and no illegality as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

22. So far as the seizure of iron ores and the ownership of the truck is concerned, this Court finds that the learned trial court, after considering the materials on record has passed a well-reasoned judgement and has ultimately convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 414 IPC for recovery of unaccounted 10 tons of iron ore

¶39

7

¶40

and acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and also from the charges under Sections 33 and 42 of Indian Forest Act on technical grounds. The learned trial court after considering the materials on record convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 414 of IPC vide paragraph 22 to 25 as under:

¶41

“ 22. As per the case of the prosecution trucks No. OR 05 E 8349 & JH 05 G 4913 speeded up seeing the police and subsequently the drivers stopped the trucks by the side of road at Harish Line Hotel and fled away taking help of darkness. Both the trucks were found to be loaded with 10 tons of iron ores each. The trucks along with iron ore were seized and seizure list has been prepared which is Ext. 1. Looking to evidences of PW 1, 2 & 3, I found that they have supported the factum of recovery of iron ore from both the trucks and factum of seizure of trucks along with iron ore. They have categorically stated in their evidences that both the trucks speeded up seeing the police and left vehicles near Harish Line Hotel. The seizure list witness PW6 has also proved his signature in the seizure list. The seizure list has also been proved by the prosecution which is Ext.1 which also strengthen the factum of seizure of trucks in question loaded with 10 tons of iron ore. Though the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length by defence, but nothing could be elicited by the defence which create distrust over their version regarding seizure of trucks with iron ore. Even the accused persons who are the owners of the trucks have not disputed the seizure of their trucks. Their only plea is that the trucks were vacant and no iron ore was loaded in it. But the stand of the accused persons is not sustainable as the prosecution witnesses have constantly proved that both the trucks were loaded with 10 tons of iron ore each and the oral evidences of prosecution witnesses further get corroboration form seizure list which is Ext. 1. Contrary to this the defence neither brought any oral or documentary evidence to establish its stand. Thus, I find that the defence of the accused persons that the trucks were vacant cannot be accepted. Hence, I find that the prosecution has firmly established the factum of seizure of iron ore which was loaded in trucks No. OR 05 E 8349 & JH 05 G 4913.

¶42

23. The iron ore falls under the category of "minerals" under the section 3 (a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and removal and transportation, etc., of any mineral is prohibited otherwise than in accordance with the provisions and rules under the section 4 of the said Act. This section itself prohibits mining operation in absence of permit and license. The section 10 lays by the procedure for obtaining license etc. for which an application has to be made to State Government.

¶43

8

¶44

The section 21 of the Act penalizes transportation, etc., of the minerals in violation of the Act. Thus, the state is the owner of the mines and minerals within its territory and removal or transportation, etc., of the minerals are prohibited under the provision of this act. Thus, minerals are the properties of the State and mining, transportation, etc. are regulated and has to be carried in accordance with provisions of the Act of 1957 Here it is case of none that the seized iron ore were removed and transported validly with license or permit obtained from government. Admittedly, no paper regarding the seized iron ore was found in the dumper and furthermore, the conduct of the drivers in speeding up the trucks seeing the police and their fleeing away leaving the trucks definitely points out that the seized iron ore was dishonestly taken away for disposing of without consent of state knowing the same to be stolen. Thus, I find that the prosecution has firmly proved that the seized iron ore which is found to be loaded in trucks No. OR 05 E 8349 & JH 05 G 4913 is stolen property and transported for disposing the same knowing it to be stolen.

¶45

24. Now coming to involvement of the accused persons in this case, I find that admittedly the accused No. 1 & 2 are the owner of seized trucks No. OR 05 E 8349 & JH 05 G 4913 and as proved the trucks of accused No. 1 & 2 are seized loaded with stolen iron ore and keeping in view of the fact that the accused persons also failed to stand their defence. As such I am further of the view that the presumption available under section 114 (a) of Evidence Act which provides for drawing presumption of a thief or received the same knowing it to be stolen who is found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft also operates strongly against accused No. 1 & 2.

¶46

25. In view of the above discussion as well as having regard to the factum of seizure of trucks No. OR 05 E 8349 & JH 05 G 4913 which were proved to be loaded with stolen iron ore and the fact that accused No. 1 & 2 are admittedly the owner of the trucks and keeping in view of the presumption drawn against them under section 114 (a) of Evidence Act which they failed to rebut I am of considered view that the prosecution has succeeded to establish the charge under section 414 of the IPC against the accused persons.”

¶47

23. The learned appellate court also considered evidence of each and every witness and also the materials on record on each and every aspect and recorded its findings at Paragraph Nos. 8 to 11 as under:

¶48

“ 8. From the aforesaid discussion of evidence, it appears that the appellants have not disputed their identity as owners-cumdriver of the trucks bearing registration No. JH-05G-4913 and OR-05E-8349. It is also proved by witnesses, who were member of raiding party that both the vehicles were found

¶49

9

¶50

loaded with 10 tons iron ores in each. The independent witness Pinku Biruli (PW-6) has admitted his signature over seizure list (Ext-1) prepared at the place of occurrence, but denied that nothing was seized in his presence and declared hostile by the prosecution. In this regard it has been held in Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 2012 (2) East.Cr.C.- 280 (Pat) that “….. once seizure list is exhibited and signature on it, is not denied by the seizure list witness, no doubt can be cast on seizure list which is consequence of seizure".

¶51

In view of above principles of law, mere hostility of seizure list witness is not sufficient to discard the factum of search and seizure conducted by police. Moreover, there is no rule of law or prudence that evidence of police witnesses must not be relied upon. There appears no animus of police officers belonging to raiding party to make a false allegation against the appellants. As such, I don't find any legal force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, on this point. 9. Another plea of appellants is that the vehicle was empty couldn't be entertained in view of unimpeachable evidence of eye witnesses.

¶52

Similarly, the argument advanced by appellants that seized materials were not produced during trial is also not tenable being not easily movable and heavy materials.

¶53

10. So far, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that there was no theft report and it was not proved by prosecution that the seized materials were stolen property, hence offence u/s 414 of I.P.C. is not attracted is concerned, it is here, pertinent to quote a judgment of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court reported in (1975) O.G.L.R. 983 Hastimal Asaldas Vs. State of Gujrat, wherein it was held that- "There is a vital difference in regard to the ingredients of Section 411 and Section 414 I.P.C. So far, Section 411 is concerned, the opening words make it abundantly clear that the property in relation to which the offence can be said to be committed must be established to be stolen property. Section 414 relates to property in respect of which voluntary assistance has been rendered in order to conceal, dispose of or making away with it which the offender knows or has reason to believe to be stolen. Legislature does not insist or require the prosecution to establish that the property was in fact stolen property, it is sufficient for the prosecution to satisfy the Court that the property in relation to which 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 it has been stolen."

¶54

10

¶55

11. In the instant case, there is definite evidence of prosecution that 10 tons iron ores each trucks bearing registration No. JH 05 G 4913 and OR-05E-8349 were seized and owners-cumdriver of both trucks started fleeing seeing the police party and upon chase they stopped the vehicles aside the road near Harish Line Hotel, Matagutu and manage to escape. The conduct of the appellants clearly explains their guilty mind. It was incumbent upon the appellants to explain as to from where, they have loaded the seized materials and what was the destination. The minerals like iron ores are not articles of general merchandize of frequent sale without any prohibition, rather it is governed by Special Law i.e., M.M. (D.R.) Act, 1957. The Challan found in one vehicle i.e. No.JH-05G-4913 was found to be used earlier and in another vehicle, no transit challan was found nor produced by its owner-cum-drivers. These facts indicate in unequivocal terms that the appellants were transporting seized iron ores for their own profit through disposal of the same having reason to believe that the said iron ores were stolen property.

¶56

In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of the offence u/s 414 I.P.C. has been proved by the prosecution and there appear no legal force in aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for appellants. I don't find any merit in this appeal, which stands dismissed.”

¶57

24. In the F.I.R, one person, whose photocopy of driving licence was seized from the truck of the petitioner was also made accused but after investigation, he was not charge sheeted, rather charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the capacity of owner-cum-driver of the truck belonging to the petitioner.

¶58

25. The appellate court has recorded that the petitioner has not disputed his identity as owner-cum-driver of the concerned truck and based on materials on record, recorded a clear finding that the petitioner was the driver-cum-owner of the concerned truck. Further, the records reveal that the petitioner had got his truck released declaring himself as the driver-cum-owner of the truck. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C also, the petitioner never took a stand that he was not the driver of the vehicle and he admitted that the vehicle was seized and the truck was released in his favour by the court.

¶59

11

¶60

26. There is no scope to reappreciate the materials and give a different finding in absence of any perversity in the impugned judgement. The factum of seizure of the aforesaid goods from the truck of the petitioner being driven by the petitioner on the date, place and time of occurrence is well proved by the prosecution and established from the records of the case considering the defence of the petitioner and also his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. There are concurrent findings in this regard and there is no scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶61

27. So far as the argument of the petitioner that in absence of a theft report, no prosecution under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code could have been made, the same is also fit to be rejected. Section 414 and 26 of Indian Penal Code read as under:

¶62

“26. “Reason to believe”- A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.

¶63

414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property- Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe 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.”

¶64

28. The basic ingredients of Section 414 of IPC are as follows:

¶65

(i) That the property in question is a stolen property,

¶66

(ii) The accused assisted in concealing or disposing of or making away with such property,

¶67

(iii) He did the act under (ii) voluntarily, and

¶68

(iv) He knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property.

¶69

29. This Court is of the considered view that in order to establish an offence under Section 414 of IPC, it is not necessary to establish the person from whom theft is committed, when it was committed, how it was committed and who committed it. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 (Ajendranath –vs- State of Madhya Pradesh) that Section 414 of Indian Penal Code makes it an offence for a person to assist

¶70

12

¶71

voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property, which he knows or has reason to believe to be a stolen property. It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code that another person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is a stolen property and the accused provided help in its concealment and disposal.

¶72

30. The Hon’ble Patna High Court has dealt with the scope of Section 413 as well as Section 414 of I.P.C. in Miscellaneous Case No. 608 of 2012 and while considering the requirements of Section 414 of I.P.C., has also held that there is requirement under the said section that there is knowledge or reason to believe that the property is stolen which is subject matter of offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code. The knowledge means the cognition and it emphasizes that the person dealing with the property recognizes that it is a theft property and the word “reason to believe” means there is existence and presence of circumstances from which it can be inferred that the accused had knowledge of the fact. The word “reason to believe” indicates that the surrounding circumstances and the circumstances of recovery of property, are such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind in all probabilities that the property with which he was dealing must be a stolen property. The Hon’ble Patna High Court has also followed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 to hold that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code that another person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft. The Hon’ble Patna High Court has ultimately held, by also considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1928 Calcutta 264 that if there is sufficient cause to believe on the basis of surrounding circumstance, it can well be inferred that thing exists and hence, from the surrounding circumstances, it can be inferred that there is reason to believe that the property is theft and that is sufficient for compliance under Section 414 of I.P.C. and it is not necessary to convict a person for theft under

¶73

13

¶74

Section 379 of I.P.C. for conviction under Section 414 I.P.C. However, in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Patna High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, was of the view that no case was made out under Sections 414, 413 and 120B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner of the said case. However, so far as the principle of law is concerned, the Hon’ble Patna High Court has also held that for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that the other person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft.

¶75

31. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to have a theft report in order to convict a person for offence under Section 414 of IPC. The learned trial court has referred to the provision of Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. The learned appellate court has also passed a detailed judgment considering the materials on record, and has upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 414 IPC. After going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the judgments, so far it relates to conviction of petitioner under Section 414 of IPC.

¶76

32. As per the trial court’s judgement, no previous conviction of the petitioner has been recorded and the present age of the petitioner is more than 55 years. So far as the sentence is concerned, the fact remains that the petitioner has faced criminal case since April, 2010, and as of now, more than 14 years has elapsed, and considering this aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that sentence of the petitioner be modified for the ends of justice and some fine amount be imposed upon the petitioner.

¶77

33. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court within a period of six months from the date of communication of this judgement to the concerned court. In case, the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the petitioner will serve the sentence, as imposed by the learned trial court.

¶78

14

¶79

34. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.

¶80

35. This criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid

¶81