In a prosecution under Section 411, I. P. C., the prosecution must establish that the accused knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the property was stolen.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of orders of the Courts below convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 411, I. P. C. , and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

( 2 ) THE charge against the petitioner was that he was in possession of a cow knowing the same to be stolen or having reasonable grounds for believing that the same was stolen. A learned Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him as I have indicated. On appeal the conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ali-pore.

( 3 ) AT the outset I should like to point out that if this man was guilty of receiving a stolen cow, then a fine of Rs. 200/- was quite inadequate. Life in,villages in Bengal and elsewhere would become quite impossible if theft of cattle and the crime of receiving stolen cattle were dealt with leniently. Stealing a villager's cow is a very serious offence, and so is, being in possession of such a cow knowing it to be stolen. But for the view I take on the question of guilt, I should have no hesitation in issuing a notice to enhance this sentence.

( 4 ) THE case for the prosecution was that the cow in question belonged to the complainant Harimati Dasi. The cow was found to be missing about the end of February 1948 and on March 12, 1948 the complainant reported the matter to the Ekbalpore Police. About two months after she had given the Police information, her missing cow, it was said, was found in the possession of one Fouzdar Sardar. The complainant then filed a petition of complaint against Fouzdar Sardar and the cow was seized under a search warrant issued by a learned Magistrate against Fouzdar Sardar. Whilst the case was pending, Fouzdar Sardar died and the person who was holding the cow was directed to make it over to the complainant. But he refused to do it and the cow was again seized under a search warrant.

( 5 ) THE present petitioner Bharadwaj then filed a petition in the court of the Police Magistrate at Alipore claiming this cow as his own and stating that Fouzdar Sardar had been looking after the cow on his behalf. The petitioner claimed the cow and notice was issued upon the complainant who promptly retaliated by praying for process against Bharadwaj under Section 411, I. P. C.

( 6 ) EVIDENCE was adduced before the learned Magistrate that the complainant's cow had strayed and that the cow eventually found in possession of Fouzdar Sardar was the complainant's cow. This evidence was hotly contested by the defence. But I shall assume that it was proved satisfactorily that the cow in the possession of Fouzdar Sardar was the cow which has strayed from the complainant's premises about two or three months earlier.

( 7 ) IT was argued in the lower courts that there was no evidence that this cow had been stolen. All the evidence amounts to is that it disappeared and of course it may have strayed. Taking possession however of a straying cow knowing it to be an animal which has strayed might well amount to theft, and I shall assume that this cow was stolen from the complainant by someone.

( 8 ) BEING in possession of stolen property is in itself no offence. If it was, all of us I imagine would be in serious danger constantly. Any one in this Court might buy an article today quite openly and honestly and later find that that article had been stolen. If being in possession of stolen property was itself a crime, then an innocent purchase of that sort would render the purchaser liable to conviction for a serious offence. Being in possession of stolen property is only a crime if the person in possession either knows that the property is stolen property or has reasonable grounds for believing that the property had been stolen.

( 9 ) TO succeed in a prosecution under Section 411 I. P. C. , the prosecution must not only prove that the property had been stolen, but they must also,