IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of property to secure a conviction 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 Court of 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 Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, for the offence under section 411 of 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 27.07.2007 at about 05.30 a.m., the accused No.1 was found in possession of M.O.1 Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 37 AF 1326, which was subject matter of theft in Cr.No.71 of 2007 of Pedapudi Police Station.

4. After completion of investigation, police laid a charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada. After full-fledged trial, Trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. However, found them not guilty of the offence under Section 379 of IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.203 of 2010, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 20.12.2011, by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1.

7. Heard Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

8. 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?”

9. Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence, particularly the offence alleged under Section 411 of IPC; that the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective; that there is no material on record to say that the accused had knowledge about the stolen property; that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4, which is fatal to the prosecution case and prays to consider the present revision.

10. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, 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; that the accused is the receiver of the stolen property and the presumption under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against him; that there are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court and thereby, the present revision has no legs to stand.

11. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. As per the prosecution version, after registering the F.I.R., P.W.4, while conducting vehicle checking at Salapaka Center of Kajuluri Mandal, found the petitioner with stolen property of Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle and they seized the same under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediators report in the presence of P.W.3.

12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.W.3 is a stock mediator and the police did not secure any independent mediator present at the locality. Thereby the testimo