Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish Shivajirao Deshmukh, a jeweller, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dishonestly receiving stolen property. The conviction was based on recovery of stolen gold and silver articles from his shop pursuant to the disclosure statement of co-accused Narsing Sukalwad under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On appeal, the Sessions Court set aside the conviction under Section 411 IPC but convicted the petitioner under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act for possession of stolen property. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the recovery based on the co-accused's disclosure statement is not admissible against the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the prosecution failed to prove the requisite mens rea for Section 411 IPC. However, the court found that the petitioner was in possession of the stolen articles, which were recovered from his shop in the presence of panch witnesses, and he offered no explanation. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act were satisfied. The High Court dismissed the revision, confirming the conviction under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property - Section 411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Recovery based on co-accused's disclosure statement - The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the articles recovered from his shop were stolen property. The recovery was made pursuant to the disclosure statement of co-accused Narsing Sukalwad under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is not admissible against the petitioner. Held that conviction under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Law - Possession of Stolen Property - Section 124 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The petitioner, a jeweller, was found in possession of stolen gold and silver articles recovered from his shop. The recovery was made in the presence of panch witnesses and the petitioner did not offer any explanation for possession. Held that the ingredients of Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act are satisfied and the conviction under that section is confirmed (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act is sustainable when the recovery of stolen articles was based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and whether the petitioner can be convicted under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision, confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500.
Law Points
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act
- 1951
