IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused received stolen property dishonestly, and weak evidence may not be sufficient to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 19.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2012 confirming the judgment and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Una in Criminal Case No.889 of 2008.

1.1 According to the prosecution case, the present incident of housebreaking and theft was committed on 1.5.2008 at 11/30 pm in Una town. According to the prosecution case, co-accused Bhavesh and Mohanbhai break open the gate of rear side of the house of Ajitkumar Ramniklal, committed criminal trespass and committed theft of some utensils worth Rs. 9000/- from the house. Further, it is the prosecution case that above said co- accused persons sold the above said muddamal to present applicant which was kept at the house of co-accused Kanji @ Kanabhai. Therefore, it is the prosecution case that the present applicant dishonestly received and retained above said stolen property with him knowing fully well that it was a stolen property and thereby present applicant has committed an offence punishable u / s 411, 201 r / w . 114 of IPC. Charge sheet was submitted. At the conclusion of trial, the Ld.JMFC, Una was pleased to convict all the four accused persons and present applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 411, 201 and 114 of IPC.

1.2 The Learned Magistrate was pleased to sentence the applicant to suffer SI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default, he is directed to undergo SI for 7 days for the offence punishable u / s . 411, 201 and 114 of IPC.

1.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner preferred to file Criminal Appeal No.16/2012 before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Una. That the Ld. Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 19.4.2012 was pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order of Ld. Magistrate. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parth Tolia for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent State.

3. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering para 5, 22 and 25 of the impugned order, what appears that the present petitioner has purchased utensils, which was said to have been stolen from the premises. The utensils were found vide discovery panchnama at Exh.39 taken at the instance of the co-accused. The co-accused took the police to the shop / Bhangar Dela of the present petitioner, where the utensils are found. So, discovery of the utensils comes through the discovery panchnama recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Court while convicting the present petitioner did not discuss the evidentiary value of discovery panchnama at Exh.39. Even otherwise, this discovery panchnama could be considered as a weak piece of evidence and may place as a link in the entire chain of the incident. What could be discovered is utensils u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution is required to prove the ingredients of section 411 of the IPC to prove the case against the petitioner accused.

4. In order to prove the case against present petitioner, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused has received the stolen property dishonestly. Two aspects are required to be proved; firstly the prosecution is required to prove that property, which is discovered from the premises of the petitioner is a stolen one and secondly, it was dishonestly received. On going through the impugned judgments and orders, more particularly of learned JMFC, nowhere it is discussed by the learned JMFC that how ingredients of section 411 of the IPC is satisfied, which evidence comes on record to show that the utensils recovered from the premises of the petitioner were the same which were stolen and it was dishonestly received. Unfortunately, this cursory and perfunctory finding of the learned JMFC has been given seal by the learned Sessions Court. Keeping the utensils are no