THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.526 OF 2005 ORDER: This appeal is field by the State against the acquittal of the accused No.2 in C.C.No.439 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta. According to the prosecution, respondent herein and another A.1 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 411 IPC alleging that on 14.04.2000 at 3.00 p.m. Dwarmpudi Sudhakarareddy lodged a complaint with regard to theft of his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP 5 B 8100 by some unknown offenders when he parked the same outside his house on 14.04.2000 at 1.00 p.m. and on his complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2000 of Kothapeta Police Station. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by the Palacole police and recovered the property as per the confessional statement of A.1 and recovered twenty motor cycles from the possession of accused No.2 at Kothapeta. Hence the accused are liable for punishment under Section 411 IPC. The lower Court has framed the charge under Section 411 IPC against both the accused. In order to establish the said charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1. The learned Magistrate by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC and found the accused No.2 not guilty and acquitted him. Against the acquittal of the accused No.2, the present appeal is filed. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 411 IPC against A.2 beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: According to the prosecution, A.1 was arrested by the Palacole police on 29.09.2000 at 9.00 p.m. and as per his confessional statement twenty motor cycles were recovered from the possession of A.2 at Kothapeta and according to the prosecution, A.2 is having a mechanic shed and A.1 kept the motor cycles in his shed and A.1 shown the said motor cycles to the police, upon which they seized the same. The learned Magistrate has observed that the prosecution failed to establish that A.2 has got knowledge that M.O.1 is the stolen property. As per the mediators report Exs.P.2 and P.3 and also the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, it is evident that at the instance of A.1, M.O.1 property along with other property was seized from the shed of A.2. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that A.2 has got knowledge that M.O.1 is stolen property brought by A.1 to his shed. When A.2 has no knowledge that the M.O.1 property was stolen property, simply keeping the said property in his possession does not bring home any guilt for an offence under Section 411 IPC. Hence the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 411 IPC against A.2, accordingly, the appeal fails and the finding of the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 30th April, 2011 KSP