JUDGMENT

Chandra Prakash, J. - This is an application in revision against the order dated June 14, 1971 of Sri A.P. Mathur Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur dismissing the applicant's appeal.

2. The applicant Kaushal Kishore was tried under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, in brief, was that on April 18, 1966 one Deo Narain (P.W. 1) a student of P.P.N. College, Kanpur had kept a cycle in front of the Principal's office at about 7 a.m. He locked it also and went to attend the class. He returned at about 9-40 a.m. and found the cycle missing. He wrote a report and lodged it at Colonelganj Police station at 11-45 a.m. the same day. No thief or accused was named in the First Information Report (Ext. Ka-1).

3. The case was investigated by S.I. Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W. 8). He arrested the applicant on September 20, 1966 and at his pointing out recovered the lost cycle (Ext. 1) from the possession of Kripa Spanker (P.W. 6) at the gate of the Elgin Mills. Kripa Shanker disclosed that the applicant had sold the cycle to him on July 23, 66 for a sum of Rs. 85/- by means of receipt (Ka-2). The applicant was challenged as mentioned above.

4. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He denied the recovery of the cycle at his pointing out altogether. He also denied the execution of the receipt (Ext. Ka. 20). His defence was that he was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the Managing Committee of the College, which was against him.

5. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its story. The applicant produced no defence. After considering the entire evidence on record the Magistrate, who tried the case, acquitted the applicant of the charges under sections 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code; but he found the case under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code made out against the applicant, and accordingly the applicant was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

6. The applicant appealed in the court below, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has come up in revision before this Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also the counsel fur the State and after going through the record I have come to the conclusion that this application in revision must fail.

8. A legal point in the very beginning was urged on b-half of the applicant the it the applicant has been acquitted under section 414 Indian Penal Code and the State has not filed any appeal against that part of the judgment of the trial court. It was, therefore, contended that it has be- come final that the applicant did not dispose of the property to Kripa Shanker (P.W.6.) and if that evidence is excluded, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the crime at all. This contention cannot be accepted. Section 414 Indian Penal Code is as follows :

"Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

9. A perusal of this Section will show that it contemplates a case of a per. son, who voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with the property It does not con- template a person, who himself dispose; of the property. Section 414 Indian Penal Code was therefore, inapplicable, and the acquittal of the applicant on this count is of no avail to him.

10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the cycle (Ext. 1) was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and whether he had sold it to Kripa Shanker, as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence on the question of recovery at the pointing out of the applicant consists of the Sub-Inspector Sri Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W.8) and Bhagwan Singh (P.W.7). Thus there are two witnesses on the point of recovery, who had no motive to implicate the applicant in a false case.

11.