G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) IN these revision petitions, the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 22nd April, 1982, discharging the accused Vasudev Sharma for the offences under Section 412/414, I. P. C. has been challenged.
(2.) A challan under Section 395, 397, 402, 412, 414 and 120-B, I. P. C. has been filed against the various accused Gulam Mustafa, Ahmed Hussain, Jahid Hussain, Abid Hussain, Abdul Latif and Vasudev Sharma. One Abdul Aziz filed a report in the police on 16th September, 1981, that on the night of 16th September, 1981, while he was sleeping with his wife and his children in his bed-room, the thieves cams and plugged his mouth. In the room, there were six persons only, in total, out of whom, two had pistols in their hands. They [then demanded the keys. A blow was inflicted on his head when he avoided giving the keys and then he was tied. After that, the accused party went away with cash, gold, silver ornaments, emerald and finished goods, after breaking the almirah and safe. During the investigation, an information was given by the accused Gulam Mustafa that he has taken Rs. 45,000/- by pledging stolen property. Gulam Mustafa informed the Investigating Officer, Indra Kumar Sharma that he has pledged four packets of emerald weighing about 510 carat with Vasudev Sharma, an employee of PWD. , residing in Janata Colony for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- through a| broker Abid. He further informed that he has sealed these four packets after tying in red handkerchief and on the knot of which he has signed "g. M. ". This information was given on 11th October, 1981 and on 12th October, 1981, the recovery was made of these packets and the accused Vasudev Sharma produced the deed. The said deed runs as under :-translation "i Gulam Mustafa s/o Mohammed Yamin by caste Musalman, resident of Ghat Gate, Ramganj Mohalla, Takiya Adamshah, Jaipur, pledge my four packets of emerald weighing 510. 75 carat sikkaband (sealed) with Shri Vasu-dev s/o Brij Mohan Sharma, resident of A-84, Janata Colony, Jaipur, for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- (rupees forty-five thousand only), for a period of two months from today. These are my personal goods. I accept to give an interest on this money @ 2% per month, you will have a right to sell these goods and recover-money after two months. These are not stolen goods and if there would be any dispute concerning these goods, I would be responsible for that. This deed has been written by me in my full senses. Sd/- Gulam Mustafa Sd/- Abdul Latif Dated 30-9-81 Sd/- Abid Hussain. I, Abid Hussain, s/o Noor Ahmed, Mohalla Takiya Adamshah, verify that the above goods are not stolen one and this has been pledged on my guarantee. Sd/- Abid. " witness: Sd/- Abdul Latif. The accused, Vasudev Sharma has been discharged on the ground that it has not been shown that the transaction took place in such circumstances that the accused could have knowledge or belief that the property which he was taking was a property involved in dacoity or theft. In the opinion of the lower court, there were no sufficient ground for charging the accused under Section 412, read with Section 414 and, therefore, he was discharged from the offences under Sections 412, 395, 397,402, and 120-B, IPC. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused Vasudev Sharma, I am of the opinion that no interference can be made in this case. Though detailed and prolonged arguments were made, it may be stated at the very outset that the crux of the offence under Section 411 or 412 is that the accused must know or should have reason to believe that the property is stolen property.
(3.) IN the instant case, the evidence against the present accused consists of the recovery of four packets which were given to the accused in consideration of Rs 45,000/- for which a document was written by the accused Gulam Mustafa on 30. 9. 1981 and Abid Hussain stood as a guarantor and Abdul Latif attested the document. Another piece of evidence consists of the evidence of a hawker Radheshyam, who used to deliver Rajasthan Patrika at the residence of the accused in Janata Colony, Jaipur. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this evidence was enough for the purpose of charge, because the detailed evidence would be given during the trial. All that is required at this stage is that prima facie these must be a case which would required trial. It was pointed out that the Rajasthan Patrika flashed the news of this dacoity and even the names of the accused were given on 8th October, 1981 and on 10th October, 1981, and therefore, even if the accused had no knowledge earlier, he retained the property, because he never volunteered to inform the police and hand over the property. ;