IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23455 of 2007 PURSHOTTAM NARAYAN GOPAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 17.10.2008 Heard Sri L.N.Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Though the informant officer Incharge of Sri Krishnapuri P.S. was duly served with notice he has chosen not to appear and contest this application. The petitioner, the sole F.I.R. named accused of S.K.Puri P.S. Case No. 218 of 2004 registered under section 414 I.P.C. has prayed for the quashing of order dated 18.4.2007 passed therein by Shushree Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby she has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge. It appears that on the basis of the confessional statement of one Shubhash Mishra @ Raju Mishra, an accused of S.K.Puri P.S. Case no. 217 of 2004, to the effect that he stole computer parts and sold them in different shops including the shop of the petitioner, a raid was conducted in the shop of the petitioner in the presence of Raju Mishra by the police who seized whatever materials were available in the shop including scrap parts of computers without testing the same. For an offence under section 414 I.P.C. it is necessary that the property which is the subject of the charge should be stolen property and the accused should have known or had reason to believe that it was stolen property which they were trying to conceal or make away with. - 2 - In the instant case the petitioner runs a business of sale, purchase and repair of computer and computer parts and in course of business customers do sell and purchase computer or computer parts. Apart from the confessional statement of Raju Mishra the only other matter available for submitting charge sheet is paragraph 65 of the case diary wherein one Vijay Pratap Singh of another case has identified his computer amongst the seized articles. In this connection it is submitted that apart from seizure of eight computers from the shop of the petitioner some more computers were seized in case no. 217 of 2004 which were also kept along with the computers seized from the petitioner’s shop. It is not clear from the above and the identifier has also not stated as to in connection with which case his computer was recovered. That apart there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had knowledge that the articles were stolen and that he had assisted in concealment or disposal of stolen property. Apparently, the ingredients of offence under section 414 I.P.C. is sadly missing. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)