Judgment ANANT SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a truck driver, has been convicted under S. 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. On the 9th May, 1959, the petitioner was found driving a truck beating No. B.R.F. 1822, which was stopped by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Syed Rizvi (P.W. 6), near Majid Chauk in Hajipur. Since he found it overloaded with goods, he made a search of the truck in presence of two search witnesses (P.Ws. 2 and 5) and recovered one electric fan (material Ext. I), bearing on it, an engraved initial I. E. W. - Himalaya. Suspecting this fan to be a stolen property, P.W. 6 submitted a written report about the incident, on the basis of which a first information report was drawn up. After the usual investigation, charge-sheet against the petitioner under S. 441 of the Indian Penal Code, was submitted by S.M. Alam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hajipur. 3. The petitioner was tried by a Magistrate and acquitted of the charge under S. 411, Indian Penal Code. He was, however, convicted under S. 414, Indian Penal Code; and his conviction on appeal was maintained by the lower appellate Court. He filed this revision which first came up for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court. It has since been referred to a Division Bench, and that is how the case has come up before us. 4. Mr. He filed this revision which first came up for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court. It has since been referred to a Division Bench, and that is how the case has come up before us. 4. Mr. Umesh Chandra Prasad Sinha, Counsel for the petitioner, has raised a point that once the fan was not proved to be a stolen property and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under S. 411, Indian Penal Code, he cannot be found guilty under S. 414, Indian Penal Code, which is to the following effect : "Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with find or with both." Section 411, Indian Penal Code, is to the following effect : "Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished." Section 412, Indian Penal Code, deals with dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen property, the possession whereof has been passed by the commission of dacoity. Sec. 413 deals with habitually receiving or dealing in stolen property. 5. It would appear that S. 414 applies to a person who assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with a stolen property; in other words, to a person who abets or facilitates in any manner concealment, disposal or making away with any stolen property. The basic factor in all the sections from 411 to 414 is that the properly must be proved to be stolen property; and unless the property in question is proved to be as such, the provisions of neither of the sections will be attracted. The learned trial Court, while dealing with the charge against the petitioner under S. 411, found as follows : "P.W. 8 is Ramdin Thakur, a mistry in the Electrical Department in Sonepur Railway Station. This witness is in charge of Fans and lights of the Railway trains in Sonepur District. According to him, the fan (Ext. 1) is a Railway property of N. E. R. but this fan was not stolen property of his jurisdiction. This witness is in charge of Fans and lights of the Railway trains in Sonepur District. According to him, the fan (Ext. 1) is a Railway property of N. E. R. but this fan was not stolen property of his jurisdiction. Considering the fact that the fan in question is not a stolen property of a particular place and for which a case has been filed, therefore, in my opinion, the charge under S. 411, Indian Penal Code, is not conclusively proved." But, at the same time the learned Magistrate on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 8 held that the fan in question was of N. E. Railway hearing the mark I. E. W. Himalaya, which was used only in Railway trains. The Magistrate further found that this type of fan is not thrown open to the use of the public, and in this view of the matter he held that the fan is a Railway property and further held that to prove the charge under S. 414, Indian Penal Code, "it is not necessary to establish that the property in question is the subject matter of any particular theft, but it must be shown that it the subject-matter of the property is of some theft or other." In this view of the matter, he convicted the petitioner under S. 414, Indian Penal Code, instead of S. 414 Indian Penal Code. 6 The learned Magistrate does not appear to have appreciated the true import of stolen property as defined in S. 410 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, not necessary, as the Magistrate would seem to think, that the stolen property should have been proved to have been in possession of a particular person and in a particular locality before it was stolen. It is enough when the possession of the property has been transferred by theft, or by extortion or by robbery or by criminal misappropriation. If once the fan in question was found to be the property of N. E. Railway, the presumption would be that it was stolen no matter from what particular place, it was stolen from the possession of the railway. If once the fan in question was found to be the property of N. E. Railway, the presumption would be that it was stolen no matter from what particular place, it was stolen from the possession of the railway. Now, when once the learned Magistrate found that the property was not proved to be a stolen property for the purpose of the charge under S. 411, Indian Penal Code, it was not possible to sustain a charge under S. 414, Indian Penal Code for, in that case also, the property had| to be proved, to have been a stolen property. The evidence of P.W. 8, on whom the learned Magistrate relied to hold that the fan was the exclusive property of N. E. Railway, was also not sufficient, inasmuch as he seems to have admitted that no fan was stolen from his jurisdiction; and although he said that Railway fans are auctioned he could not deny that condemned fans are auctioned by the railway. The witness further admitted that fans are supplied to the Railway through different companies, and he could not deny, if public also could purchase such fans from those companies. The name of N. E. Railway was not written on the fan in question, and, therefore, it was not possible to say that the fan in question was the property of the N. E. Railway. It could have as well been sold at auction by the Railway if it was condemned and then repaired by the purchaser. Thus, the prosecution was not able to establish that the fan in question was a stolen property and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been convicted even of the offence under S. 414, Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result, the application is allowed, and the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed upon him are set aside. G.N.PRASAD, J. 8 I agree.