PERERA v. SILVA.

P.C., Colombo, 85,630.

Dishonest retention of stolen property-Innocent receipt in the first instance- Evidence of theft and dishonest retention-Penal Code, s. 394.

    MIDDLETON, J.-I cannot concur with Withers, J., in the opinion (expressed in Hanifa v. Bandirala, 3 N. L. R. 267) that the offence of dishonest retention of stolen property implies an innocent receipt in the first instance ; but a dishonest retention may be complete without any guilty knowledge at the time of receipt.

    Where it was proved that the goods seized in possession of the accused were the property of Whiteaway, Laidlaw & Co.; that they were quite new, and were not sold to the accused; that the accused was employed in the shop of Whiteaway, Laidlaw & Co.; that he admitted that the goods-came from their shop; that he did not make good his statement that he had bought the goods there, and that he is in possession of other new goods which another shopkeeper claimed,-

    Held, that upon these facts it was reasonable to conclude that the goods in question were stolen from Whiteaway, Laidlaw & Co.; and that the accused knew them to be stolen goods a