Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Accused Ajay Sethi who was in custody of Anti Theft Squad in a vehicle theft case bearing FIR No.64/09, under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Vasant Kunj, disclosed that he has sold Tavera vehicle to accused Md. Arif."

3. Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is based on mere conjectures and unsubstantiated grounds and digresses from the factual circumstances of the case. Learned counsel contends that no case under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant as there is no judgment of conviction against the appellant under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, which is reproduced below:

49. Something more is required to establish that the offender is in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property. Since the offence under Section 413 IPC is inter-related with and is an aggravated form of Section 411 IPC, the State would have to prove and establish that the offender was convicted repeatedly, twice or more than twice, for offence under Section 411 IPC so as to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property. Therefore, the conviction under Section 413 IPC is based on repeated convictions for offence under Section 411 IPC. Due to previous conviction, a punishment of different kind is prescribed in Section 413 IPC which the accused is required to undergo.
50. Hence, while prosecuting a person for offence under Section 413 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following factors:
firstly, the property in question has been stolen from a place. Thus, the prosecution must bring the property within the ambit of Section 410 IPC within the definition of stolen property. Secondly, the offender has been dealing with or receiving stolen property. Thirdly, the offender knew or had a reason to believe the property to be stolen. Fourthly, he has been repeatedly convicted, i.e twice or more than twice, of offence under Section 411 IPC. It is only after the prosecution establishes these factors that the court would be legally justified in concluding that the offender is habitually dealing with or receiving stolen property and in imposing the punishment as prescribed by Section 413 IPC.
51. Admittedly, the appellant was involved in six different FIRs.

Undoubtedly, so far the appellant has been convicted only by the learned trial court at Jaipur. He continues to face the trials in the other FIRs mentioned above. Hence, prior to his conviction by the learned Judge, the appellant was never convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC. Therefore, there is no evidence to infer that the appellant is in the habit of receiving stolen property. Hence, his conviction for offence under Section 413 IPC is clearly unjustified."