To establish guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had reason to believe that the property was stolen at the time of receipt, not merely that they suspected it was stolen.

V. N. Varma, J.

1. THIS revision is directed against an order dated 20-3-1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under Section 411 IPC.

2. AT the relevant time (August, 1973) Abdul Shakoor PW 1 owned a tube-well with a transformer fixed therein. On the night of 4/5th August, 1973 a theft was committed at his tube-well and ail the copper wire present on the body of the transformer was removed therefrom. Several other things, namely, a Parat, a lota, a tumbler and a Katori (all made of brass) were also found missing. One bag having a cross-mark on it was also not found there. On the lota and the tumbler the name of Abdul Shakoor had been engraved. Abdul Shakoor collected some of his friends and left for Sarrafa Market of Saharanpur in search of the articles which he had lost. In the Sarrafa Market he visited almost all the shops and ultimately came across a person having a bag with a mark of cross on it. He identified that bag to be his. He also saw a person bargaining for sale of the articles contained in that bag. He left behind some of his friends, namely Chandrabhan and Chaman Lal to keep watch on the person who was trying to sell off his things and himself left for Kotwali to make a report. AT the Kotwali he lodged a written report. Thereafter, he again left for Sarrafa market accompanied by police. There he saw the person (Bundu) who had been trying to sell off his things receiving some money from the applicant. The applicant had purchased the stolen articles from Bundu. The police caught Bundu and searched the shop of the applicant. From Bundu the police recovered Rs. 357/- and from the shop of the applicant the police recovered all the articles which Abdul Shakoor had lost. The applicant as also Bundu were taken into custody and a case was registered against them. Thereafter, the usual investigation followed and eventually Bundu was sent up to stand lis trial under section 380 I.P.C. and the applicant under section 411 I.P.C.

Both the accused of the case pleaded not guilty. Bundu denied to have sold the articles belonging to Abdul Shakoor to the applicant. The applicant however, admitted that Bundu had said those articles to him for adequate consideration and that he had purchased those articles without knowing that they were stolen property.

3. THE learned trial court found the case fully proved against the applicant as also against Bundu and it, therefore, convicted the former under section 411, IPC and the latter under section 380 IPC and sentenced both of them to 1 1/2 years' RI each. The applicant went up in appeal against his conviction but in vain. Now, he has come up in revision to this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this revision must be allowed. Before a person could be convicted under section 411 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove two things, (1) dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property and (2) knowledge at the time of receipt that the property received was stolen property. From the evidence on record it does appear that the applicant had received stolen articles, viz., one bag Ex. 1, Parat Ex. 2, tumbler Ex. 3, katori Ex.4 and copper wire weighing 21 Kg. and 30 grams Ex. 5 from Bundu butthare is nothing convincing to show that when he received those articles from him he knew them to be stolen property. The articles which he had purchased from Bundu were not worth more than Rs. 400/- and it appears that for these articles he had paid Rs. 357/- to Bundu because this amount had been recovered from Bundu's possession soon after the bargain for sale was struck. Seeing the value of the property sold and the price prayed therefor there can be no doubt about the fact that there was nothing fishy about the transaction of sale. An effort was made to show through the mouth of Chaman Lal (PW 2) that when the