Judgment Kamla Sahai, J. 1. Petitioner Nagina Ahir has been convicted under Sec. 411 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25 or in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. There is a Government agricultural farm at Udwantnagar near Arrah. The prosecution case is that two bullocks, bearing Nos. A.S. 62 and A.A. 70, were stolen front the form on the night of the 27th/28th February. 1962. Information was lodged with the police; but no trace of the bullocks could be found. Subsequently however a bullock was found tied in front of the petitioners house near Buxar on the 30th September, 1963. On being questioned, he said that he had purchased it from Neur Ahir For a sum of Rs. 400. The Assistant Sub-Inspector (P.W. 8) questioned Neur Ahir on the same date, and he said that he had sold the bullock to the petitioner. He also produced a receipt showing that he, in bis turn, had purchased the bullock from Faguni Mela. A case of theft was started against him. and the present case was started against the petitioner. The theft case against Neur Ahir has failed. 3. An Honorary Magistrate (P.W. 9) held a test identification parade of the re-covered bullock on the 6th November, 1963 Some witnesses then identified the bullock as one of the two bullocks stolen from the Udwantnagar farm. The chart is exhibit 5. 4. There seems to be no evidence that the petitioner knew the bullock (Exhibit 1) to be stolen or that he had reason to believe that it was stolen The courts below appear to have applied the presumption contained in Sec.114 of the Evidence Act in order to fill up this lacuna. Illustration (a) to Sec.114 reads: "That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession." Mrs. Seth has argued that this illustration has no application to the facts of the case because the recovery of the bullock (exhibit I) was made long after the theft of bullocks from the farm viz. Seth has argued that this illustration has no application to the facts of the case because the recovery of the bullock (exhibit I) was made long after the theft of bullocks from the farm viz. over one and a half years later She has contended that, as the bullock alleged to have been stolen was not recovered soon after the theft, the presumption cannot come into play. In support of this contention, she has relied upon Narain Singh V/s. Emperor, AIR 1928 Lah 687 which itself is based upon a decision of Shadi Lal. J. in Mangaya Shah V/s. Emperor, 32 Ind Cas 660: (AIR 1916 Lah 288) 5 In my judgment, Mrs. Seths argument is correct. Unless the, stolen property is recovered soon after the theft, it is difficult to see bow the presumption referred to in illustration (a) to Sec.114 can be made. I may also refer to the case of Laloo Kahar v Emperor, AIR 1942 Pat 439 (2) in which a Division Bench of this court has held that the onus of proof never shifts, and that, even if the presumption is made, it does not mean that the onus shifts to the accused to prove affirmatively that he had no knowledge that the goods were stolen. All that happens, if the presumption is raised, is that the accused must give a reasonable explanation of his possession. The accused is not bound to establish the truth of his explanation beyond all doubt. If his explanation may, possibly, be true, the prosecution must positively prove the guilt of the accused as it has to do in all other cases. 6. aS I have already said, the presumption does not apply in this case. Even if it is supposed for the sake of argument that it does come into play the petitioner has given an explanation. His explanation was verified on fee very day on which he gave it, by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (P.W. 8). When questioned. Neur Ahir supported his explanation. That explanation is reasonable, and may possibly be true. In this view of the matter also it was necessary for the prosecution to prove positively that the petitioner knew, or had reason to believe, that the bullock (Exhibit I) was stolen property. This onus has not been discharged. 7. When questioned. Neur Ahir supported his explanation. That explanation is reasonable, and may possibly be true. In this view of the matter also it was necessary for the prosecution to prove positively that the petitioner knew, or had reason to believe, that the bullock (Exhibit I) was stolen property. This onus has not been discharged. 7. In the circumstances mentioned above, the case against the petitioner fails, His application is therefore, allowed, his conviction and sentences are set aside, and he is acquitted The fine, if paid, must be refunded.