Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 410 as well as Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and further submitted that Section 26 of Indian Penal Code defines the term "reason to believe". Learned counsel referred to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 608 of 2012 (Naveen Yadav -Vs- The State of Bihar) and submitted that in the said case, the ingredients of Section 414 of Indian Penal Code have been considered. He submits that it has been held by Hon'ble Patna High Court that the ingredients to establish an offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code are :

35. The basic ingredients of Section 414 of IPC are as follows:

(i) That the property in question is a stolen property,
(ii) The accused assisted in concealing or disposing of or making away with such property,
(iii) He did the act under (ii) voluntarily, and
(iv) He knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property.

This Court is of the considered view that in order to establish an offence under Section 414, it is not necessary to establish the person from whom theft is committed, when it was committed, how it was committed and who committed it. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 that Section 414 of Indian Penal Code makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property, which he knows or has reason to believe to be a stolen property. It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code that another person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is a stolen property and the accused provided help in its concealment and disposal.

36. In the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 608 of 2012 by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, the scope of Section 413 as well as Section 414 of I.P.C. has been dealt with and the Hon'ble Patna High Court, while considering the requirements of Section 414 I.P.C., has also held that there is requirement under the said Section that there is knowledge or reason to believe that the property is stolen which is subject matter of offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code. The knowledge means the cognition and it emphasizes that the person dealing with the property recognizes that it is a theft property and the word "reason to believe" means there is existence and presence of circumstances from which it can be inferred that the accused had knowledge of the fact. The word "reason to believe"

indicates that the surrounding circumstances and the circumstances of recovery of property, are such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind in all probabilities that the property with which he was dealing must be a stolen property. The Hon'ble Patna High Court has also followed the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 to hold that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code that another person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft. The Hon'ble Patna High Court has ultimately held, by also considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1928 Calcutta 264 that if there is sufficient cause to believe on the basis of surrounding circumstance, it can well be inferred that thing exists and hence, from the surrounding circumstances, it can be inferred that there is reason to believe that the property is theft and that is sufficient for compliance under Section 414 of I.P.C. and it is not necessary to convict a person for theft under Section 379 of I.P.C. for conviction under Section 414 I.P.C. However, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Patna High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, was of the view that no case was made out under Sections 414, 413 and 120B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner of the said case. However, so far as the principle of law is concerned, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has also held that for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that the another person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft.