Criminal revision against concurrent convictions under Section 411 IPC for receiving stolen consignment goods seized from the petitioner's shop. The High Court found the ingredients of Section 411 proved and dismissed the revision, directing the petitioner to surrender to serve his sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.722 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-1999 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar
======================================================
Mukul Singh, Son of Mahendra Singh, Resident of Village- Majharia, P.S.Buxar (Indus), District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2024
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.722 of 2019 dt.20-02-2024 2/6
complaint to the Police that on 29th of November, 1999, one Ajay Rai, a resident of Buxar was appointed as the Manager of the Transport Business of the informant situated in Delhi under the name and style of Rath Roadways. The informant claimed himself to be the proprietor of the said transport business. As the Manager of the said business, Ajay Rai booked a Truck vide Reg. No. DL-14A 1699 and loaded the truck with grocery goods, electrical goods, Iron materials, electrical Bulbs, Readymade Cloths, Containers of Ghee, etc., on 18th of November, 1999 to deliver the said goods in Kolkata. However, the said Truck did not reach its destination. The Truck owner Balvindar Singh told that Ajay Rai and his associates asked him to unload the goods at Buxar Chorasta. Then the informant came to Buxar and lodged FIR vide Buxar (Muffasil) P.S Case No. 180 of 1999 for offence under Sections 409 and 120A of the IPC against three accused persons, namely, Ajay Rai, Vinay Rai and Sadanand Rai. On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered Buxar (Muffasil) P.S Case No. 180 of 1999 and took up the case for investigation. During investigation, it was ascertained that Ajay Rai unloaded the said truck at a place near Buxar though the consignment was booked for delivery at 33, Ramlal Mukharjee Lane, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, West Bengal. It
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.722 of 2019 dt.20-02-2024 3/6
was ascertained that 175 cartoons of EverReady lantern, 36 cartoons of electric Iron, 50 cartoons of bulb, 100 tin Milkfood Desi Ghee, 17 bundle hosiery and 10 cartoon cosmetics were taken away by the above-named three accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.722 of 2019 dt.20-02-2024 4/6
receives or retains any stolen property; (iii) knowing; or (iv) 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. Section 24 IPC states that a person does a thing dishonestly who does it with the intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss. It is not necessary that there should be an intention to cause both. On the analogy of this definition, it might be said that either an intention to secure a benefit or advantage on the one hand, or to cause loss or detriment on the other, by means of deceit is an intent to act dishonestly. In order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove:
(i) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused;
(ii) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it; and
(iii) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.722 of 2019 dt.20-02-2024 5/6
property was received by the petitioner and during investigation the said properties were seized from different places including the shop of the petitioner. List of seizure list marked Exhibit 5,5/1, 5/2 and 6 and seizure list marked Exhibit 7 mentioned the items recovered from Kanchan Electric which were stolen articles. Test Identification Parade of stolen properties was conducted and the informant identified the seized articles as the consignments booked with this transport company.
“where it involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation etc,. The informant obviously suffered injury by being deprived of his own movable goods and is being deceived by his Manager and thus being defrauded.”
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.722 of 2019 dt.20-02-2024 6/6
accused guilty of offence under Section 411 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.
impugned orders.
contest.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/skm/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | 02.02.2024 |
| Uploading Date | 20.02.2024 |
| Transmission Date | 20.02.2024 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 411 IPC, concurrently affirmed by the courts below, suffered from any illegality or material irregularity warranting reversal in revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vimla (Dr) v. Delhi Admn.Referred¶7
[1963 Supp (2) SCR 585] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukul Singh
The State of Bihar
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
