A conviction for dishonestly receiving stolen property requires proof of the accused's guilty knowledge or reason to believe the property was stolen. Furthermore, the statutory presumption regarding possession of stolen goods is inapplicable when there exists an inordinate, unexplained temporal gap between the theft and the recovery.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, as per judgment dated 14.03.2003 in C.C. No.570/1999, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court-III) Pathanamthitta, by judgment dated 31.05.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.106/2003. The revision petitioner is the first accused in the said case. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were acquitted by the trial court. Accused No.3 is no more.

2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:

On 25.11.1993, at the instigation of the 1st accused, accused Nos. 2 to 4 committed theft of Ambassador Car No. KRO 2293, worth Rs. 1,00,000/- belonging to CW2, who was the registered owner of the car, and which was in the possession of CW1, the husband of CW2, from the car shed attached to House No. 437 situated in the 1st Ward of Kozhencherry Panchayat. The 1st accused sold the car. Thus, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and marked Exts.P1 to P11. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against them. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 to D3.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found all the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 109 r/w Section 34 IPC and acquitted them on the said charges. However, the first accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 of the and was convicted. The first accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of the fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were acquitted by the trial court. Accused No.3 is no more.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court, the first accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.106/2003 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court-III), who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the first accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri. Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Hasnamol N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court convicted the accused without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the first accused was in possession of the alleged stolen engine of the car with the knowledge that it was stolen property. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that the accused had reason to believe that the engine in his possession was the proceeds of a crime or stolen property. It was therefore contended that the essen