Mulla, J.

[1] One Mohammad Urooj, a resident of Kanpur, owned and managed a tenanery on 'Kundan Road which was on the road between Unnao and Kanpur. He purchased a large number of goat hides From Gul Mohammad and Brothers of Kanpur. These hides were known by the name of "Patna Tayari" hides. About 8 or 9 days after these hides came to his tannery theft was committed in the tannery buildings between the night of 13 and 14-12-1951 and 389 hides were stolen. Mohammed Urooj made a report about this theft on the 15-12-1951.

No names were given in this report. The police registered a case under Section 380, I. P. C., but did not succeed in tracing the culprits. Sub-Inspector Shaukat Husain was in charge of the investigation. He was about to file a final report when Mohammad Urooj approached one Noor Mohammad, P. W. 3, and tried to trace the stolen hides through him. Before the final report could be accepted, the investigation was taken away from Sub-Inspector Shaukat Husain by the Station Officer Sri Salik Ram, and on 8-1-1952 he recovered 388 hides from shop No. 97/9 on Kayasthana Road, Kanpur which belonged to one Abdul Rahman.

This recovery took place at about 10 P. M. When this recovery was made, Rasul, Abdul Rahman, Ali Husain, Phuddi and Abdul Razzaq were present in the shop of Abdul Rahman. These hides were subsequently put up for identification, and Mohammad Urooj and other employees of his tannery identified these hides as the hides which were stolen on the night between the 13 and 14-12-1951. It was urged that two other persons were also present in the shop of Abdul Rahman when these hides were recovered but they ran away before they could be arrested.

These two persons were, however, recognised, and they were Ghafoor and Salar, the brothers of Rasul. They were also subsequently arrested, and the police prosecuted all the seven persons under Section 380, I. P. C.

[2] This case was heard by a Magistrate of Unnao but when the time came for framing the charge, he thought that instead of Section 380, I. P. C., the case proved against the accused person fell under Section 411, I.P.C. He, therefore, framed a charge against all the seven accused persons under Section 411, I. P. G. When the case became ripe for decision, the trial court again changed its opinion and came to the conclusion that Section 411, I. P. C., applied only to the case of Abdul Rahman but the cases of the other accused persons fell under Section 414, I. P. C.

He thereupon convicted Abdul Rahman under Section 411, I. P C., and Rasul, Abdul Razzaq and Phuddi under Section 414, I. P. C. The other three accused persons were acquitted. The Court purported to act under the provisions of Sections 236 and 237, Criminal P. C.

[3] All the convicted persons went up in appeal, and the Sessions Judge of Unnao rejected the appeal of Abdul Rahman but accepted the appeals of Abdul Razzaq, Phuddi and Rasul. The appellate Court found that the facts of the case believed by the trial Court did not constitute an offence under Section 414, I. P. C., and therefore acquitted these appellants. Aggrieved by this order the State has filed the appeal against the three persons, namely Rasul, Phuddi and Razzaq.

[4] The main point that was raised before us in this appeal was that the evidence on the record clearly established a case under Section 414, I. P. C., against Rasul, and the trial Court was fully justified in convicting him under that Section by using the provision of Sections 236 and 237, Criminal P. C. The appeal against the other two appellants, namely Razzaq and" Phuddi was not pressed, and in our opinion rightly not pressed The evidence against these two appellants did not constitute an offence at all and this was conceded by the Counsel for the State.

[5] Sections 236 and 237, Criminal P. C., are really meant to apply to that type of cases where there is no doubt about the facts alleged but there is a doubt as to the applicability of any particular law against the proved s