Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Shailendra Singh And Another on 26 February, 2020
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar, Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5668 of 2006 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Shailendra Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned AGA for the State appellant.
This application has been filed by the State of U.P. with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T. Court no. 2), Mirzapur in Session Trial no. 113 of 2003 (State Vs. Indrajeet Sahani and Shailendra Singh) and Session Trial no. 224 of 2003 (State Vs Pappu Singh) whereby the respondents-Shailendra Singh and Pappu Singh have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C.
The contention of the learned A.G.A. is that a consignment of 700 bags of cement was looted from a truck and out of it a consignment of 337 bags of cement were recovered from the godown of Shailendra Pratap Singh-respondent no.1, who is proprietor of Singh Hardware Agency. Another consignment of 350 bags of cement was recovered from the godown of Kamakhya Enterprises of which Pappu Singh-respondent no.2 was the proprietor. The submission is that the P.W.-5 S.I Maya Shankar Singh in his testimony has stated that accused Indrajeet Sahani had informed him that the consignment of stolen bags of cement has been sold to Shailendra Singh and Pappu Singh. The trial court has acquitted the accused Shailendra Singh and Pappu Singh on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that when the accused-respondents had purchased the consignment of cement, they had knowledge that it was stolen property and that they had dishonest intention in purchasing the same.
In order to constitute the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. it is necessary to establish dishonest intention on the part of the receiver of stolen property in receiving the stolen property and also that he has knowledge or reason to believe the same to be stolen property. We find that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused-respondents, Shailendra Singh and Pappu Singh had dishonest intention at the time of purchase of bags of cement or that at the time of such purchase they had knowledge or reason to believe that such consignment of cement was stolen property.
We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial court dated 29.04.2006 passed in Session Trial no. 113 of 2003 so far as it relates to acquittal of the respondent Shailendra Singh for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and in Session Trial no. 224 of 2003 acquitting the respondent Pappu Singh for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C.
Application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Since the leave to appeal application has already been rejected, the Government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2020 Kirti