The prosecution must prove possession and knowledge of stolen property to constitute an offense under Section 411 IPC; mere involvement or advice is insufficient.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in C.C.No.2140 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel representing Sri B.Krishna Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramchandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused No.1, the brother of the respondent No.2 and a native of Rajasthan State, was addicted to vices such as smoking and consuming ganja and, for his lavish expenses, indulged in property offences. In 2018, after his release from jail, he came to Hyderabad on the directions of his parents and started residing with the respondent No.2, working as a Salesman in his cloth shop without being paid any salary. During visits to his brother-in-law at Bangalore, the accused No.1 came into contact with the accused Nos.2 to 4, who are also property offenders, and shared his grievance, leading to a plan to commit theft from the respondent No.2’s shop. In execution of the plan, the accused Nos.1 to 4 using a Maruti Swift Dzire bearing No.GJ-01-HQ-0149 and on the advice of the petitioner-accused No.5, a police constable, came to Hyderabad and stayed at an OYO hotel. On the night of 27.07.2022, the accused Nos.2 and 3, being experts in burglary, entered the shop by cutting the window bars, broke open the drawers, and stolen Rs.5,50,000 in cash. Thereafter, they returned to Bangalore, handed over the car to the accused No.5, and gave him Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, the accused No.1 moved to Goa, where he worked at a Kirana and General store owned by one Satish Kumar. Taking advantage of Satish Kumar’s absence during a medical visit, the accused No.1 called the accused No.2, and together they stole gold ornaments, which were handed over to the petitioner-accused No.5, who disposed of some items and concealed the remaining in the dashboard of a vehicle, which is the subject matter of Crime No.210 of 2022 of Panaji Police Station, Goa. Thus, the accused Nos.1 to 4 committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, and the petitioner-accused No.5 committed an offence under Section 411 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.5 has no manner of involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that there is no recovery of any stolen property from the possession of the petitioner-accused No.5. Moreover, there are no specific or direct allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet, and a plain reading of the contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.

5. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.5, he relied upon a decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2025 SC 1522] wherein at Paragraph Nos.31 to 37 held that:

“31. Similarly, the High Court impliedly held that witnesses connected with M/s CN have failed to identify the seized gold. However, in the opinion of the High Court, the same is not relevant because the appellant has failed to prove lawful acquisition of gold. We fail to understand, when the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of seized gold as being the same gold which were sold by M/s. CN to M/s. Globe International, how the appellant is liable to prove lawful acquisition of gold vis-à-vis the stolen gold.

32. In order to bring home the charge under Section 411