LAW FOR ALL

whether the Courts below were justified in holding the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC and not Section 411 thereof.=for the satisfaction of the ingredients expressed in Section 412 IPC, the accused could be held to be guilty only, if it could be further established, that the stolen property received by the appellant, was known to him, as having been procured through, the commission of a dacoity=The ingredient of Section 412 IPC, referred to in the foregoing paragraph, has an alternative. Even if the alternative can be established, the accused would be guilty of having committed the crime expressed in Section 412 IPC. It is apparent from a plain reading of Section 412 IPC, that a person receiving stolen goods, would be guilty of the offence under Section 412 IPC, if it can further be shown, that the recipient of the goods knew (or had reason to believe), that the person offering the goods, belonged to a gang of dacoits. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the instant involvement of the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar is his first involvement in such a case, inasmuch as, he has never faced a criminal trial earlier, and has never been convicted for any criminal involvement prior to his instant conviction. According to learned counsel, the prosecution having not shown his previous relationship with any of the other 10 accused, prior to the incident under reference, there was no question of any presumption, that the appellant herein had known (or had reason to believe), that the offerer of the silver chips belonged to a gang of dacoits. 15. Having perused the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court as also the High Court with reference to the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar, it is not possible for us to conclude, that either of the Courts below had recorded any finding in respect of the other essential ingredients of the offence under Section 412 IPC. The evidence produced by the prosecution, that the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar had known (or had reason to believe), that four silver chips (weighing 1 kiolgram each) was stolen property, would be sufficient only to establish his guilt under Section 411 IPC. A perusal of the impugned judgments, does not reveal a finding recorded by either the Trial Court or the High Court, that the appellant was aware, that the silver chips presented to him by Shivaji Kale (accused n o.8) were procured by the commission of a dacoity. Even the alternative conclusion, namely, that the appellant knew (or had reason to believe) that Shivaji Kale (accused no.8) belonged to a gang of dacoits, was not recorded by the courts below. Even during the course of hearing before us, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, could not draw our attention to any evidence on the basis whereof, either of the aforesaid alternative ingredients of Section 412 IPC could be demonstrated. It is therefore clear, that the guilt of the appellant under Section 412 IPC cannot be stated to have been substantiated in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the Trial Court, as also the High Court, were not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 412 IPC. We therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 412 IPC. 17. The sentence imposed on the appellant herein, was based on the fact that he had been found guilty of offence under Section 412 IPC. Our determination, however exculpates the appellant from having committed the offence under Section 412 IPC. We, however, maintain the conviction of the appellant, under Section 411 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment, contemplated for the offence under Section 411 IPC, can extend upto three years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of punishment inflicted on the appellant is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. In case of default, in payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Ordered accordingly. Partly allowed, as above.