The prosecution must establish the elements of the alleged offenses, including possession and knowledge, to secure a conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

: C. K. Thakker, C.J. (Oral) :- This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, on February 28, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1995, quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against the respondent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, on August 4, 1995 in police Challan No. 339-1/92 and 96-II/93.

2. Three persons, namely, Brij Mohan, Lalit Kumar and Surinder Singh were prosecuted in pursuance of filing of FIR No. 56 of 1992 at SHO, Police Station, Kullu, under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). The case of the prosecution was that one Murari Lal (PW-8) reported to the police authorities that he was working as driver with one Mohinder Kumar (PW-2) and was driving his Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-02-0600, which was registered with the Taxi Union at Kullu. On February 8, 1992, as per his usual practice, he stationed the said vehicle near P.W.D. office and dead house. The documents of the vehicle, Sterio and driving licence of the complainant were also in the vehicle itself. On the next morning, that is, February 9, 1992, when he went to the spot where the vehicle was parked, it was found missing. Search was made by the complainant, but the vehicle could not be traced. He, therefore, approached the police authorities and filed a report, which was registered as FIR No. 56 of 1992 initially under Section 379 of the Code. The matter was investigated partly by PW-6 ASI Jagat Ram and partly by PW-9 Amar Singh, SHO, Police Station, Kullu. During the course of investigation, it was found that some other persons were also involved in the theft and accordingly, case was registered under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Code. When the case came up for trial before the learned Magistrate in January, 1995, during the course of deposition of prosecution witnesses, the court felt that two more persons, namely, Pitamber Dev and Joginder Singh (Respondent herein) should also be arrayed as accused as they were also involved in the incident as well as in the commission of offences under the Code. By exercising powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, both of them were added as accused and they were also charged with offences punishable under Sections 411 and 471 of the Code.

3. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, held that it was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had committed offences punishable under Sections 379 read with Section 34 of the Code. He was, however, of the view that so far as accused No. 5 Joginder Singh was concerned, it has proved that he had purchased Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-02-0600 as stolen property which was recovered from him on March 19,1992 and the registration number was changed as PB-04A-8972. Thus, the said accused had committed offence punishable under Section 411 as well as 471 of the Code. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate convicted the said accused and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 411 and also rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 471 of the Code. Both the sentences were, however, to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year more.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu. Before the lower appellate Court, it was contended that the Magistrate has committed a serious error of fact and of law in convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 411 and 471 of the Code. It was urged that when the offence of theft was not proved, the appellant cou