IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Ashraf – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 553 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2023
Dishonestly Receiving Property - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397, Section 401 - Section 412 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a scrap dealer, was charged under Section 412 IPC for receiving stolen copper scrap. The petitioner argued that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe that the scrap was obtained through dacoity. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner knowingly received the proceeds of dacoity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's complicity in the dacoity was not established. It concluded that the offence under Section 412 IPC was not made out and set aside the charge, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 411 IPC and commence trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the received scrap was obtained through dacoity, warranting a charge under Section 412 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that there was no prima facie evidence to frame charges under Section 412 IPC. It emphasized the distinction between Sections 411 and 412 IPC, highlighting the requirement of knowledge or reason to believe that the property was obtained through dacoity.
Final Decision: The court set aside the charge under Section 412 IPC and directed the trial court to frame charges under Section 411 IPC and commence trial.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 11.05.2022 and order on charge dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.346/2021, titled as "State vs. Pankaj & Ors." pertaining to F.I.R. No. 039/2021 dated 24.01.2021, under Sections 395/365/120B/412/34 IPC registered at Police Station Seelampur, whereby the learned Trial Court had framed the charge under Section 412 IPC, 1870 qua the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a small time Scrap dealer, who earns his livelihood by buying and selling scrap material. As per the allegations, Abdul Salam @ Mulla, one of the accused, contacted him to sell the stolen copper scrap for which the petitioner paid an appropriate price.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chargesheet in the present case was filed on 03.05.2021, implicating him u/s 412 IPC without proper consideration of legal aspects and in ignorance of the facts of the case.
4. The facts of the case as culled out from the petition are as follows:
a. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons allegedly committed robbery of a truck loaded with copper scrap. As per the statement of the complainant, on 23.01.2021, three to four persons stopped the truck and kidnapped the driver as well as the conductor of the truck. Thereafter, the accused persons took away the truck loaded with copper scrap and emptied it at a godown which was already arranged by the accused persons prior to the robbery.
b. Each accused had a specific role to play in the alleged crime of kidnapping and robbery, like accused Nadeem @ Naim and Abdul Salam @ Mulla arranged the godown for keeping the so procured copper scrap from the truck of the complainant. Both of them were present where the truck was taken and unloaded. Other co-accused persons such as Pankaj, Ayub, Tinkle and Rishabh Sharma were allegedly seen in the CCTV footage following the truck.
c. Later on, the police had arrested the co-accused persons including one scrap dealer namely Abdul Salam @ Mulla, whereby he disclosed that he sold the stolen copper scrap to various other scrap dealers including one scrap dealer namely Ashraf @ Babli, resident of Sunder Nagri, Delhi.
d. On 09.02.2021, the petitioner/accused who is also a scrap dealer and resides at Bhopura, Ghaziabad went to the Police Station Seelampur for some personal reasons and was arrested in the instant case for his name being the same as disclosed by another co-accused.
e. Thereafter, 400 kgs. of the material out of the alleged 3000 kgs was allegedly recovered from the Petitioner from his shop at his instance after a lapse of 17 days from the alleged incident of robbery.
f. The charge sheet under Section 392 IPC was filed by the investigating officer on 03.05.2021. The matter was committed to Sessions Court for the reason that Section 395 IPC was also added later on.
g. The impugned order dated 11.05.2022 states that the recovery was made at the instance of the accused Zakir, Ayub, Abdul Salam @ Mulla, Nadeem and Ashraf @ Babli and that they received the stolen property despite knowing or having reasons to believe that they were proceeds of dacoity. Accordingly, all the accused persons were held liable for the charges under Section 412 IPC.
h. Vide the order of charge dated 26.05.2022, charges u/s 365 r/w 149 IPC and 395 were framed against all the accused, whereas charge u/s 412 IPC was framed against accused Ayub, Zakir, Abdul Salam @ Mulla, Nadeem @ Naim and, the petitioner herein namely Ashraf @ Babli.
5. Mr. Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the charge sheet dated 03.05.2021 submits that as per the disclosure statement of the accused Abdul Salam @ Mulla who was arrested
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of knowledge or reason to believe that the received property was obtained through dacoity, as stipulated in Section 412 IPC.
Possession of stolen articles – Key ingredient for a crime is mens rea – To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import.
Scrap dealer not liable under Sections 411/120-B IPC for purchasing scrap from attached premises pursuant to custodian permission and cheque payment, absent knowledge of theft or conspiracy; FIR quas....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's knowledge or strong belief of knowing the articles to have been stolen in the offence of dishonestly rece....
Mere possession of stolen property is insufficient for conviction under Section 411 IPC without proof of the accused's knowledge that the property is stolen.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.