IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28019 of 2008 AKHILESH SAHNI … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Sanjay Kumar With Cr.Misc. No.33947 of 2008 GAURAV KUMAR … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri K.N.Diwakar With Cr.Misc. No.30108 of 2008 SHEKHAR KUMAR … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. For the State( in allcases)Shri Dashrath Mehta,APP ----------- 3. 2.12.2008 Heard. The three petitions, on behalf of the single petitioner in each of them, arise out of Ahiyapur P.S.Case No. 169 of 2008 under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Three motorcycles in occupation of as many number of persons were seized by the police and the occupants of the vehicles could not produce any document of possession of those vehicles. It is indicated in the F.I.R. that petitioner Shekhar Kumar was 2 sitting on the pillion of the vehicle which was being driven by accused Jitendra Kumar. The occupants of the vehicles were questioned and they made a candid disclosure that those vehicles were being taken to Sitamarhi for being sold there. The statement of Jitendra Kumar was reduced into writing in which course the said accused stated that some more vehicles were to be driven to Sitamarhi during the night for the same purpose which were also properties of theft. The police claims intercepting the five vehicles which were being driven by as many number of persons out of whom one slipped taking the advantage of foggy conditions. Others were captured and their statements were taken. The police claimed all the vehicles including the five which were being driven subsequently during the night as the properties of being theft. Shri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner Shekhar Kumar has submitted that Section 413 of the I.P.C. was not applicable in as much as it speaks of habitual dealing in theft 3 properties. As regards Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, the contention of learned Senior Counsel is that the petitioner Shekhar Kumar was simply a pillion rider, he had no knowledge about the nature of the vehicle as regards its lawful possession. The further contention is that even accused Jitendra Kumar has not implicated petitioner Shekhar Kumar. Shri K.N.Diwakar appearing for petitioner Gaurav Kumar has raised a legal issue as regards the admissibility of the evidence of Jitendra Kumar before institution of the F.I.R. and thereafter as regards the recoveries of five vehicles indicated in the F.I.R. The contention has been that the same could not be of any use and that the same could not even be said to be implicating any person except rendering a general information as regards the vehicles being taken to Sitamarhi. The further contention was that the possession of the theft properties could be from before but the case was instituted about two months after the drawl of the F.I.R. 4 Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner Akhilesh Sahni submitted that the vehicle which was found in his possession was not found to be a property of theft and, as such, his implication is not in accordance with law. I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter as regards the arguments on law inasmuch as that could be a question to be decided on the trial after recording of the evidence and for which the above finding recorded by me may not be conducive to fair and proper justice as regards the petitioners. But suffice it to mention that drawl could not be the sine qua non for filing a petition under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and simply for that there could be an information coming from an accused who is in custody of the police in respect of the property which could be the subject matter of any lis and the discovery of the fact on that account. The applicability of the Section could be adjudged by the Judge who could be finally hearing the matter. The simple facts of the case are 5 that none of the occupants had any authority to possess those vehicle. This is very much stated in the F.I.R. and that is not disputed that most of the vehicles were found to be the properties of reported theft case. The condition in the society is that a report on or before, for various reasons, cold not go to the police for the offence of the nature and one of the aspects of such behaviour could be the harassment one could face or one could generally face at the hand of the investigating agency in first registering the case and then filing a report. Admittedly, none of the occupants had any authority for possessing the vehicle. The case appears of organized gang of criminals indulging in committing the offence of the present nature. All these three petitions are dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)