The prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offense under Section 65 of the Madras City Police Act, including that the accused had reason to believe that the property was stolen or fraudulently obtained, and that the accused failed to satisfactorily account for his possession.

The petitioner, the accused in C.C. 21 of 1974 the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, has preferred this revision petition challenging the propriety and legality of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in C.A. 104 of 1974 on his file, confirming the conviction under S. 65 of the Madras City Police Act and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week, passed by the trial Magistrate.

2. The crux of the indictment as per the prosecution case is that the petitioner on 18-4-1974 at 9 a.m. was found to have been in possession of 19 brass plates weighing 57 kilograms, all worth Rupees 1, 500/-, suspected to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained and for possession of which he had failed to satisfactorily account. The prosecution examined two witnesses besides marking Ex. P-1, mahazar dated 18-4-1974, and the material objects M.Os. 1 to 3. P.W. 1, the Inspector of Police, Tiruverumbur, has deposed that the petitioner, on being inquired, produced one gunny bag (M.O. 3) containing one square-seized brass plate (M.O. 1) and 18 round-sized brass plates (M.O. 2 series), all weighing 57 kilograms. According to him, the petitioner, when inquired, stated that these plates were entrusted to him for safe custody by one Dharman, son of Chinnaswami Nadar, and one Murugesan. As P.W. 1 suspected that these properties should have been stolen properties, he seized the material objects under Ex. P-1, attested by P.W. 2 and another, and arrested the petitioner and after completing the investigation, laid the charge-sheet. P.W. 2 is examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 as regards the recovery of the properties from the petitioner.

3. The petitioner-accused, when questioned on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, has admitted the fact of his having been in possession of the properties M.Os. 1 to 3 and having produced the same to P.W. 1 in the presence of P.W. 2. But, he has pleaded that these properties are his own acquired by him in the normal course of his business as a hawker in old aluminium and brass vessels. He has denied that the properties are stolen properties. He examined a witness on his side, who has spoken of his having known the petitioner for the past six years as a respectable hawker in old aluminium and brass vessels, with no infamous activities whatsoever. Relying on the evidence placed by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is proved to have been in possession of the properties suspected to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained, for the possession of which he failed to satisfactorily account and thus the prosecution has conclusively and affirmatively proved its case and brought home the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under S. 65 of the Madras City Police Act an sentenced him as stated supra. On appeal, the lower appellate court has confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. T. S. Arunachalam, appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently urge that both the Courts have completely failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and that the ingredients of S. 65 are not satisfactorily proved in the instant case. According to the learned Counsel, the ingredients of the said section will not be attracted unless it is established that there was reason to believe that the properties seized were either stolen or fraudulently obtained and the inability on the part of the possessor to account for his possession cannot alone be taken as a circumstance for believing that the property was either stolen or fraudulently obtained. Finally, he would submit that in the light of the admission made by the prosecution witnesses about the states and procession of the petitioner, there is no question of any adverse inference being drawn against the petiti