Is the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code a minor offence vis-a. vis section 380 of the I.P.C. ? Can one be convicted for the former offence without a specific charge accusing him of that offence and based on charge under section 380 for which he faced the trial? These are some of the questions posed in the present revision.

2. The appellant is the account accused in C.C.No 83/89 on the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate - 1. Ernakulam. He is aggrieved that though the conviction entered against him by the trial court for offence under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside in section Crl.A. 141/92 by the Third Additional Sessions Court. Ernakulam the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict him for the offence under section 411 of the I.P.C.

3. Sri. C.B. Sreekumar who argued the case of the appellant submitted that in the absence of any charge under section 411 of the I.P.C. framed against the second accused, there was no question of convicting him for the said offence. It is also his case that the ingredients of section 411 of the I.P.C. stand unestablished in the case in so far as there is no evidence adduced to show that the second accused received stolen properties from the other accused. What is to be considered, therefore is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment of the appellate court.

4. The prosecution case was that pursuant to the common intention of the 4 accused to commit theft they went in a country boat at about 11 p.m.on 14.11.88; approached the barge by name "Sheeja" belonging to the Arm Rock Company which had been moored in the boat yard of the Harbour Marine Industries situated north of the Fisheries Harbour, Thoppumpady; trespassed into the barge of which PWI was the watchman and thereafter committed theft of six Life Jackets worth Rs 1,000/- each, two chairs worth Rs 400/- each and two plastic cans worth Rs 100/- each from the engine room of the barge after opening its door.

5. A perusal of para 8 of the appellate judgment shows that the appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly established that the above items marked MOs 1 to 3 series were stolen from the barge. In para 10 it further found that the available evidence established beyond doubt that the stolen articles were recovered from the house of the present petitioner pursuant to information given by him to the police in the confession statement. the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under section 457 and 380 of the I.P.C. only because PWI could not identify the second accused as one of the four persons who committed the theft. At the same time the appellate court accepted the prosecution evidence with regard to the fact that the MOs in question were actually seized from the house of the petitioner based on his own confessional statement.

6. The question then is whether the aforesaid finding is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 411 of the I.P.C. Section 411 reads as follows:

Dishonestly receiving stolen property- Whoever dishonestly revives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, of a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The essential ingredients, therefore, are:-

(a) A person knows or has reason to believe a thing to be stolen property

(b) With such knowledge and dishonest intention he revives or retains it.

7. The contention of the petitioner there is nothing to show that anyone among accused Nos. 1. 3 and 4 had handed over MO s 1 to 3 to him and that there is no evidence of receipt of any stolen property by him. The absence of knowledge that it was stolen property is also raised as a ground justifying exoneration from the offence under section 411 of the I.P.C. I find no merit in this contention.

8. A p