JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The four Petitioners were convicted u/s 411 of Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Their convictions and sentences were confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri. 2. The Petitioners were tried for offences punishable under sections 457, 380 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, but were acquitted of the said offences and were convicted by the trying Magistrate u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case was that there was a robbery in the house of the complainant on the night of 11.11.53 resulting in the theft of gold ornaments worn by P. W. 2 with some utensils and other articles. On suspicion the houses of the accused persons were searched and certain articles were recovered from their custody. From the house of accused Balinath three pieces of Kurujatakamala of gold along with Kanthi were recovered. From the hose of Joga Patra five pieces of Chapasari-mala and two Kanthis of gold were recovered and from the house of Petitioner Joga Patra five pieces of Chapasari-mala were recovered. From the house of Kela Malik four pieces of Chapasari-mala were recovered. The Petitioner Joga also produced certain utensils concealed in a paddy field. It is also alleged that from the -house of one Lakhana Kumar four pieces of gold kurujataka beads were recovered on information given by the Petitioner Balinath and some other articles were also recovered from P. W. 14. These articles were identified as theirs by P. Ws. 1 and 2. Only the Petitioner Balinath claimed the articles found in his possession as his, and the others denied the ownership of the ornaments as also the recovery from their custody. 4. As stated already, the trying Magistrate acquitted the accused persons on the charges for offences under sections 475, 380 and 392, Indian Penal Code, but he convicted them u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the articles were recovered from a public place like a paddy field on the information given by fadu and Kela, but they cannot be made liable for this as this place is not in the exclusive possession of those persons arid there is a possibility that somebody else might have concealed the property there to the knowledge of the accused persons. 5. 5. But the main contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Asok Das, is that the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code, on the facts found in this case, is contrary to law. His contention is that the Magistrate having acquitted them of the offences of trespass, theft and robbery on the ground that there was no evidence that these persons actually trespassed or committed the theft, cannot convict the Petitioners u/s 411, Indian Penal Code, as there is absolutely no evidence as to how these Petitioners Came into possession of the stolen property, and that these Petitioners cannot be held to have retained the stolen property knowing it to be stolen as there is absolutely no evidence as to who was in possession of that property before the Petitioners came to retain it. 6. Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code says: "Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment...." A reading of this section indicated that the two words 'receives' or 'retains' must each be read along with the words stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.... A person may receive a stolen' property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and he may also receive stolen property not knowing or not having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. In the former case he would be liable as a receiver of stolen property and in the latter case, if after having received it innocently he continues to hold it after being told that it was stolen property, then he is said to retain the stolen property knowing it to be stolen. But if a person dishonestly removes any movable property from another and that property, remains with him, he cannot be said to retain the stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, as in that case he would clearly be liable for then and not for retaining the stolen property. But if a person dishonestly removes any movable property from another and that property, remains with him, he cannot be said to retain the stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, as in that case he would clearly be liable for then and not for retaining the stolen property. Consequently, in order to bring a person in possession of any movable property within the mischief of Section 411, the prosecution must in the first instance prove that there was some other person who was in possession of that property and from whom the accused received it. 7. To be liable under section- 411, it must be proved that the accused either dishonestly received the property or having received it honestly, dishonest retained it. In both the cases the accused must receive it from another. The act of dishonest removal within the meaning of Section 379 constitutes theft and that being so the thief does not commit the offence of retaining stolen property merely by continuing to keep possession of the property stolen. In the case of Trimbak Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, their Lordships Mahajan and Bhagwati JJ. of the Supreme Court held. "It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person u/s 411, I.P.C., to prove that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused and that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property." The conviction of the Petitioners u/s 411, Indian Penal Code, therefore, is contrary to law. There is absolutely no evidence in the case that the Petitioners received the stolen property from any other person and retained it knowing it to be stolen. 1 would therefore allow the revision, set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the petition ears and acquit them, and their bail-bonds stand cancelled. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed