Legal provisions regarding Essential Ingredients of the offence of dishonestly receiving Stolen Property under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Essential Ingredients of the offence of dishonestly receiving Stolen Property:
In order to convict a person for the offence of receiving stolen property, it is necessary to establish three factors:
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) That the property in question was stolen property;
(ii) That the stolen property was in the possession of the accused;
(iii) That it was dishonestly received or retained; and
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iv) The accused knew or had reason to believe that the, property was stolen property.
1. Stolen Property:
Section 411 deals with the receipt of stolen property. As per Section 410, “property, the possession where of has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as ‘stolen property’.”
To prove the offence under Section 411, the prosecution should prove that the property stolen must have been acquired by theft or criminal misappropriation or other offences alien to them. To punish the accused under Section 411, it is necessary to prove all the circumstances constituting the property as stolen property.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Property into or for which the stolen property has been converted or exchanged is not stolen property. An ingot obtained by melting stolen jewellery is not stolen property. A contrary view has been taken to say that an ingot made out of stolen ornaments by melting still retains its character of stolen property. But if stolen property is converted into cash, such cash cannot be regarded as stolen property.
In Re Gaune Vithu Ghode [(1942) Cri. Appeal No. 187 of 1942 Unrep (Bom)] it was observed that if a gold necklace is stolen and exchanged for another necklace or melted down and converted into an ingot, it does not cease to be the same golden necklace that was stolen. What was stolen was gold in the form of a necklace, and what is produced is the same necklace in the form of an ingot.
A person may abandon his property and things of which the ownership has been abandoned are not capable of being stolen.
Such property cannot, therefore, be the subject of an offence under Section 411.
2. Possession:
It is not necessary that the stolen goods should have been physically produced from the actual possession of the accused. It is sufficient to show that the accused after the articles were stolen came into control of stolen goods and that he did so dishonestly or having reason to believe that it was stolen.
Dishonest receipt and retention implies possession, and such possession to be criminal must be actual and exclusive, the criminal liability does not attach to constructive possession, as of the karta of a joint Hindu family who though presumed to be in possession of the entire family property, could not, on that assumption, be held criminally liable for stolen goods brought into the house by other members of the family.
The word ‘possession’ in this connection obviously means conscious possession, for any other possession could not be taken into account in charging person with criminal liability. As has been expressly provided for in Section 411 such person must be both dishonest and with knowledge of or belief in the stolen character of the property.
An accused can be said to have committed the offence of receiving stolen property in respect of only the property recovered from him. The fact that the rest of the property stolen has not been recovered from him does not affect his liability. Mere knowledge as to the whereabouts of the stolen property will not make any person liable under Section 411.
In Trimbak v. State [AIR 1954 SC 39] it was observed that the field from which the ornaments were recovered is an open one and accessible to all and sundry, it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was in possession of those articles. The fact of recovery by the accused was compatible with circumstances of somebody else having placed the articles there, and of the accused somehow acquiring knowledge about their whereabouts. That being so that fact of discovery could not be regarded as conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of those articles.
3. Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property:
Section 411 does not deal with mere receipt of the property, but clearly indicates the necessity of a dishonest intention. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused has either dishonestly received or retained the stolen property. In either case, the accused must receive it from another. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was some other person who was in possession of the property before the accused has either received it or retained it.
The dishonest ‘reception’ is different from dishonest ‘retention’. In dishonest reception, dishonesty is contemporaneous with the act of such acquisition who in dishonest retention, dishonestely supervenes after the act of acquisition of possession. To constitute dishonest retention, there must have been a change in the mental element of possession, possession always subsisting animo et facto – from an honest to a dishonest condition of the mind in relation to the thing possessed.
A person who retains possession of property dishonestly, therefore, possesses it dishonestly. But he who possesses it dishonestly does not necessarily retain it dishonestly. Dishonest retention thus implies a charge in the mental element of possession from ‘honest’ to ‘dishonest’ in relation to the thing possessed.
According to Section 411, liability is imposed not only on those who receive stolen property, knowing it to be stolen but also on those who receive the property honestly, but later on retain it dishonestly. Thus, the liability of a person who retains dishonestly a property that he received honestly, is not less than that of a person who receives it dishonestly.
4. Receiving or retaining stolen property with knowledge:
The offence made punishable under Section 411 is not the receiving of stolen property from any particular person, but receiving such property knowing it to be stolen. The accused must have known or must have had reason to ‘believe’ the property to be stolen.
The word ‘believe’ is a much stronger word than ‘suspect’ and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind that the property with which he was dealing must be stolen property.
It is not sufficient to show that the accused was careless, or he had reason to suspect that the property was stolen or that he did not make sufficient enquiry to ascertain if it had been honestly acquired. It is immaterial whether the receiver knows or not who stole it. Initial receipt of property may be lost but its retention becomes dishonest if he continues to possess it even after he comes to know that property is stolen.
In Bhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan [(1995) CrLJ 625 (Raj)], the accused purchased 9 kgs silver for a paltry sum deliberately knowing to be stolen property, it could not be said of him that he was a bona fide purchaser. Silver ingots were recovered at his instance from several persons. His conviction was held to be sustainable.
In Nagappa Dhondiba v. State [AIR 1980 SC 1753] it was observed that where stolen ornaments of the deceased which she had been wearing when she was last seen alive are discovered within three days of the murder in pursuance of an information given by the accused and there is no other evidence, the accused can be convicted only under Section 411 and not under Section 302, IPC or Section 394, IPC as there is nothing to connect him with the murder or the robbery.
In State of Karnataka v. Abdul Gaffar [2000 CrLJ 4456 (Kant)], a copper pot with Rs. 200 in it was stolen from a temple, the presumption of theft was raised against the person in whose possession it was found. The property was worth Rs. 600 only. Considering the fact that it was stolen from a temple, a fine of Rs. 2000 was imposed under Section 411.
The offence under Section 411 is cognizable, and warrant should, ordinarily, issue in the first instance. It is both non- bailable and non-compoundable and is triable by any Magistrate summarily if the value of property stolen does not exceed Rs. 200.