THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.623 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal is field by the State against the acquittal of the accused No.2 in C.C.No.476 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 10.12.1999 evening at about 4.30 p.m. some unknown culprits committed theft of Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.AP 5 D 3652 belonging to Manyam Subrahmanyeswara Rao, when it was kept in a lane at Market road, Ravulapalem and on the complaint given by him, a case was registered in Crime No.123 of 2000 under Section 379 IPC on 17.10.2000. Again on 10.11.1999 at about 6.30 p.m. some unknown offenders committed theft of Green Colour Luna bearing No.AP 5 9401 belonging to Tadi Eswara Veeranjaneya Venkatareddi, which was kept near LIC building of Ravulapalem and on his complaint, the case in Crime No.126 of 2000 under Section 379 IPC was registered on 19.10.2000. During the course of investigation of the said crimes, A.1 was arrested on 29.09.2000 at 9.00 p.m. and he has confessed about the commission of the above offences and also commission of theft of other motor cycles and at his instance, police seized two motor cycles from the shed of A.2 on 30.09.2000 at 2.00 a.m. 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 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.Os.1 and 2. 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: On behalf of the Public Prosecutor, it is argued that since the property involved in the above said crimes i.e. M.Os.1 and 2 recovered at the instance of A.1 from the possession of A.2; A.2 is also liable for punishment under Section 411 IPC. The lower Court has observed that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused No.2 knows that M.Os.1 and 2 are stolen property and he has dishonestly detained the said property with him. As per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is established that accused No.1 has led the police party to the shed and shown number of motor cycles and the said shed belongs to the accused No.2 and according to the prosecution, A.2 has kept the motor cycles at his shed at the request of accused No.1. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that accused No.2 has got knowledge that the motor cycles kept by A.1 in his shed are stolen property. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused No.2, who is the respondent herein. Hence, 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