Summarize the following court judgment. minal Appeal No. 226 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 28	 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1959. A. R. Choubay and Naunit Lal	 for the appellant. I. N. Shroff	 for the respondent. April 23. The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. This appeal	 by special leave	 is directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversing	 on State appeal	 the order of the Additional Sessions judge	 Hoshangabad	 acquiring the appellant	 and convicting him of an offence under section 414 I. P.C. Five bales	 containing woollen shawls and mufflers despatched from Kanpur by the British India Corporation Ltd.	 Kanpur Woollen Mills Branch	 Kanpur	 and another bale despatched from 291 Haimanpur to Kanpur were loaded at Itarsi railway station on September 18	 1957	 in Wagoa No. C.R. 325. The lock of the wagon wag found broken open at Pandhurna Railway Station at about 1.00 a.m. on September 20	 1957. on checking at Nagpur the aforesaid bales were found missing. One of the bales despatched from Kanpur was found lying the next morning near the railway line between railway stations Jaulkheda and Multai. On September 23	 1957	 the house of one Gopi Nath	 at Multai	 was searched and certain articles	 including some torn labels were recovered from that house. The same day	 the police found the appellant and a few other persons come out of Gopi Nath 's house at Betul	 whose front door was locked. Subsequently	 these persons were taken to the police station	 where the appellant made a statement showing readiness to point out the stolen property. At his instance	 the police recovered from different places of that house	 woollen shawls	 mufflers	 bed sheets and certain house breaking implements. These recoveries were made on September 23 and 24. As a result of investigation	 six persons were put on trial in the Magistrate 's Court. Ajendra Nath	 appellant	 was charged under sections 120 B	 379 and 414	 I.P.C. Babu Ram was charged under sections 120 B and 379 I.P.C. Ram Prasad and Gyarsi were charged under section 120 B read with section 879 I.P.C.	 Gopinath under section 120 B read with section 414 I.P.C. and Birendranath under section 414 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate acquitted Birendra Nath and convicted the other accused of the offence under section 120 B read with section 379 I.P.C.	 except in the case of Gopinath	 who was convicted of the offence under section 120 B read with section 414 I.P.C. Ajendra Nath was also convicted of the offence tinder section 414 I.P.C. 292 On appeal	 the learned Additional Sessions judge	 Hoshangabad	 acquitted all these convicted persons. He held that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property and that the alleged conspiracy was not proved. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of Gopinath and Ajendra Nath. The High Court dismissed the appeal against Gopinath and the appeal against Ajendra Nath for the offence of conspiracy. It however allowed the appeal against Ajendra Nath with respect to the offence under section 414 I.P.C. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed by Ajendra Nath	 appellant. Ajendra Nath did not question the recovery of the various articles from Gopi Nath 's house at Betul at his instance. He did not claim the property to be his own	 but stated that it was not stolen property. The main contention for the appellant in this Court has been that these recovered article; were not proved to be stolen property. Tile articles consisted of those said to have been sent by the British India Corporation Ltd.	 Kanpur Woollen Mills Branch	 Kanpur	 and bed sheets sent by the firm of V.S.N.C. Narsingha Chettiar	 which carries on business of wholesale Hand Loom Cloth at Karur. The invoices relating to the four bales sent by ' the Kanpur Woollen Mills give the details of the shawls and mufflers the bales contained. A very large quantity of these has been recovered. Out of 95 shawls and 63 mufflers	 as many as 80 shawls and	 43 mufflers had been recovered. Similarly	 out of 10 pairs of bed sheets stolen	 8 pairs have been recovered. The absence of any adequate explan ation for the presence of such a large quantity of articles similar to those proved to have been despatched by the Kanpur Woollen Mills or by the Karur company	 the recovery of these articles within 293 a few days of the theft	 the presence of silk and paper labels of Kanpur Woollen Mills on most of the shawls and mufflers recovered and of certain manuscript writings on the labels of the bed sheets by P.W. 24 Krishnamurthi	 brother of P.W. 16	 Venkat Raman	 who does the Karur business	 have been taken into consideration by the High Court for coming to the finding that the property recovered was proved to be stolen property. These circumstances cannot be said to be such which would not justify the finding arrived at. The main contention for the appellant however is that it has not been definitely established from the evidence of Kunzru	 P. W. 10	 that the shawls	 mufflers recovered were manufactured by the Kanpur Woollen Mills and were despatched in the bales which were subsequently stolen. Kunzru 's evidence does fall short of establishing that the shawls and mufflers recovered were manufactured by the Kanpur Woollen Mills. He has not identified the recovered shawls and mufflers as those manufactured by these mills. In fact	 he was not even shown all the shawls and mufflers recovered. He was shown by the Police Inspector	 Government Railway Police	 two lois (two shawls) and two mufflers. He got them examined by the textile expert and	 on the report of the expert	 gave the certificate that they appeared to be manufactured by the Woollen Mills of Kanpur. That expert has not been examined in Court and therefore Kunzru 's statement alone fails to establish that these shawls and mufflers were manufactured by these mills. However	 it is not open to doubt that they were manufactured by these mills when most of them had sewn silk labels of these mills and quite a good number of them had even paper labels indicating that they were manufactured by these mills. There	 is no reason to suppose and in fact no such suggestion has been made that these labels had been put on these articles by some one for the purpose of 294 deception. We therefore consider that the finding that these shawls and mufflers were the manufacture of Kanpur Woollen Mills is correct. It was also contended for the appellant that it was not proved that these shawls and mufflers were in the bales which were despatched by the Kanpur Woollen Mills and that the gate passes and the invoices produced by Kunzru were not proved as persons who wrote them had not been examined. Kunzru produced the originals of these documents. He is the salesman of the Kanpur Woollen Mills. His cross examination in no way indicates that his statement about the genuineness of the invoices and gate passes was questioned in cross examination. There is nothing to suppose that the invoices and gate passes produced in Court did not correctly represent the articles placed inside particular bales to which specific numbers were given and that those bales were despatched from the Mills in accordance with the gate passes. In this connection reference was made to the fact that five of the shawls recovered were of violet colour and no shawl of such a colour was mentioned in any of the invoices. There can be a possibility of a misdescription in the invoices	 There can be a possibility of the violet shawls being the property stolen in some other incident. The fact remains that even the violet shawls are not claimed by the appellant as his own. So	 we do not consider any force in this contention for considering the finding of the High Court defective about the property recovered to be stolen property. With respect to the identity of the bed sheets	 there is the evidence of P.Ws. 16 and 24. P.W. 16 deposed that he had supplied 10 pairs of bed sheets to a certain customer who disowned the bale. Thereupon he asked the Station Master	 Ahimanpur to return the parcel to Karur. He recognized the various sheets to be of his firm which they had 295 despatched to Ahimanpur. He further deposed that before despatching the goods they paste the firm labels on them. He stated that his younger brother Krishna Murti had noted size number and pattern over these sheets in his handwriting	 as he happened to be at home on vacation. Krishna Murti	 P.W.24	 admits that certain labels on the bed sheets were in his hand writing	 that he wrote them under instructions of his brother and that he had not written sirnilar numbers on any other bed sheets. He however stated subsequently that he did such type of markings casually	 on occasions	 and that the Sub Inspector had also got him write the size	 pattern etc.	 on certain other blank labels of the shop as well. The learned Additional Sessions judge did not rely on these statements and felt that the Investigating Officer might have got those markings on the labels of the recovered articles during the investigation. The High Court thought that there was no reason for doubting the correctness of the statements of these witnesses and for suspecting that the writings on the labels were obtained during the investigation. No question was put to P.W. 24 about the police making him write on the labels on the recovered articles. In fact	 according to the witness	 labels with his writings were shown to him for purposes of recognition and he recognized those writings to be his. The police took his writings on blank labels for purposes of comparison. We therefore see no good reason for considering the finding of the High Court with respect to the bed sheets recovered to be stolen property to be wrong. It was also contended that it was not open to the High Court to record a finding about the recovered property to be stolen property when the Government had not appealed against the other co accused who were acquitted on the basis of the finding that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen 296 property. We do not see any force in this contention. The mere fact that the learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the other accused on the ground that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property did not preclude the State from appealing against the acquittal of the appellant against whom there is better evidence for establishing that he was in possession of the stolen property than the evidence was against the other co accused. The State could challenge the correctness of the findings of the learned Additional Sessions judge about the property being stolen property and	 consequently	 the High Court can record its own finding on that question. Lastly	 it was also urged that even if the identity of the articles recovered with the articles stolen be established	 no offence under s.414 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant as the other accused have been acquitted and it is not known whom the appellant is supposed to have helped in concealing the stolen property. Section 414 I.P.C. makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property. It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under s.414 I.P.C. that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal. The circumstances of the recovery sufficiently make out that the property was deliberately divided into different packets and was separately kept. May be that the property failing to the share of a particular thief was kept separately. It was recovered from several different places in the same house. These places included an iron safe and an underground cellar. The evening before	 several persons	 including the appellant	 were found to be coming out of the back door of the house which had its front door 297 locked. The appellant also knew the whereabouts of the property inside the house of his maternal grandfather. He attempted to sell a few mufflers a day before the recoveries were made. He was seen arriving at the house	 during the night	 in a car with some persons and then removing property which looked like bales from the car to the house. All these circumanstances go to support the finding that he had assisted in the concealment of the stolen property and had thus committed the offence under s	414 I.P.C. We therefore see no force in this appeal and	 accordingly	 dismiss it. Appeal dismissed.

Five bales	 containing woollen shawls and mufflers dispatched from Kanpur by the British India Corporation Ltd. and another bale despatched from Haimanpur to Kanpur	 were loaded in wagon at Itarsi railway station. The lock of the wagon was found broken open and on checking at nagpur the aforesaid bales were found missing. On search	 certain articles including some torn labels were recovered from the house of one Gopinath. The same day the appellant and few other persons were found by the Police	coming out of Gopinath 's house whose front door was locked. They were taken to the Police Station and at the instance of the appellant the police recovered woollen shawls	 mufflers	 bed sheets and certain house breaking implements from different places of that house. After investigation	 six persons including the appellant were put on trial before the Magistrate for several charges under sections 120 B	 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and except one Birendra Nath	 all were convicted. On appeal	 all the convicted persons were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge	 on further appeal by the State	 against the acquittal of Gopinath and the appellant	 the High Court allowed the appeal only against the appellant with respect to the offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal by special leave	 this Court held : Held that the mere fact that the other accused persons were acquitted on the ground that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property did not preclude the State from appealing against the acquittal of the appellant against 290 whom there is better evidence. The State could challenge the correctness of the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge about the property being stolen property and the High Court could record its own findings on that question. Held further	 that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under section 414 Indian Penal Code that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal. The circum stances of the recovery in the present case sufficiently prove that the appellant had assisted in the concealment of the stolen property and had thus committed the offence under section 414 Indian Penal Code. The appeal therefore	 must be dismissed.