The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in cases involving the offence under Section 414 IPC, it is essential to prove that the recovered property is stolen and that the accused provided help in its concealment and disposal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 26.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC, Bokaro, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 38 of 2015, preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 31.03.2015, in G.R. No. 1573 of 1998, corresponding to T.R. No. 1179 of 2015, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro; whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo RI for two years under Section 120 B of the IPC, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, has been modified to the extent that the conviction has been confirmed but the sentence has been modified for period already undergone.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Sri N.K. Saha, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office received an anonymous call with respect to some fake revenue stamps collected and kept by one Mathura Prasad Pandey who was in officiating postman of the B.S. City, R.S. Post Office for the purpose of selling it. Just after receiving the said information, he went to the place of that fellow and interrogated by keeping him in confidence and when the petitioner disclosed everything in this context for keeping fake revenue stamps with him and he produced the same kept in his residence, worth Rs. 7,480/- then the informant took his signature on the back side of the revenue stamps and he prepared a seizure list for that. The petitioner disclosed about one Gauri Lal Bouri, Assistant Post Master, B.S. City and his brother-in-law Dina Nath Pandey were the persons who had supplied the said fake revenue stamps to him for purpose of marketing and he also disclosed that several other documents like NSC, KVP and IVP were kept in the residence of Gouri Lal Bouri, Prabhunath Gupta and Raju Verma and on search operation those documents may be recovered from their place. It is further alleged that on the said information the matter was duly inspected and a huge amount of NSC, KVP and IVP were seized from the House of one Gouri Lal Bouri.

Accordingly, FIR was registered against five accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that though the prosecution examined several witnesses and produced several documents and material exhibits, but could not be able to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts.

He further submits that to substantiate the offence committed under Section 414 of the IPC, the property which is the subject of the charge should have to be stolen property. In the instant case, there is no reason to believe that such properties were stolen and petitioner was trying to conceal it. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern with Railway Post Office, Balidih and nothing has been recovered from Balidih colony or Balidih P.S. where FIR was registered. Further, no information regarding any report from Nasik and whether the stamps were sent to Nasik (where stamps were printed) or not. He further submits that revenue stamps were not seized by the police, rather produced by the informant before police alleging these revenue stamps as seized from the residence of the petitioner.

It has been submitted that anyone can buy stamps, N.S.C., K.V.P., I.V.P. from the post office with money. The learned counsel further submits that informant did not give proof of the seized stamps being forged.

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below; as such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and afte