IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.

ORDER :

V. Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 20.12.2011 in Crl.A.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 18.06.2010 in C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 23.12.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3848 of 2011.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that :

(i) On 18.11.2007, the petitioner’s Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of M.O.1 and M.O.2 Hero Honda Motorcycles bearing Registration Nos. AP 26 K 7155 and AP 26 F 9790 and accused No.3 was found in possession of some chassis parts, which were subject matter of theft in Cr.No.182 of 2007 of Balaji Nagar Police Station, Nellore.

(ii) After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.651 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months, the accused No.3 was found not guilty and accordingly, he was acquitted. However, the trial Court did not found them guilty of the offence under Section 379 of IPC.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.174 of 2009, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore, and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 18.08.2010, by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2.

6. Heard Sri M.D. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

8. Sri M.D. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Court below erred in confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court in a mechanical fashion. He further submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the ingredients of Section 411 I.P.C. are not made out.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners basing on the mere evidence of P.Ws1 to 5 and prays to consider this present revision.

10. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborating with the contents of Ex.P.1 report. He further submits that the accused/petitioners are the receivers of the stolen property and the presumption under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against them. He further submits that there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court as well as Sessions Court and thereby, the present revision has no legs to stand and hence, he requests to dismiss this criminal revision case.

11. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are discrepancies in the testimonies of PW3 and PW5 who are the mediator and Investigation Officer. On the o