IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2317 of 2010 Date of decision: November 7, 2011 Sandeep Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. RK Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G., Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned the order, whereby a charge under Section 411 IPC has been framed against him. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the FIR to urge that there is no allegation of theft made against petitioner-Sandeep Kumar. The charge against the petitioner is not for committing theft. As per the charge, the petitioner is alleged to have been found in possession of property, which was stolen. In the FIR, the prosecution has made a positive allegation of her jewellery, mobile and some money including the I-Card being taken away. Apparently, in the statement made by the prosecution, there is an allegation of stealing of the jewellery part of which was found in possession of the petitioner. Illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, clearly provides that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. This was enough to draw presumption Crl. Revision No. 2317 of 2010 -2- against the petitioner. Prima facie, there is sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioner. No case for interference in the impugned order, thus, is made out. Dismissed. November 7, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE