JUDGMENT : The petitioners along with one Banshi Ram were tried under Sections 461 and 380 S. Ali Ahmad, J. of the Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred to as 'the Code') by the Munsif-Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih. The learned Munsif Magistrate acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 380 of the Code, but convicted them under Section 461 of the Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal the conviction under Section 461 of the Code was confirmed, but the sentence of six months was reduced to a period of two months' rigorous imprisonment by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. The petitioners have challenged their conviction under Section 451 of the Code in this revisional application. 2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, was that in the night between 11th and 12th July, 1967, the informant, Laxmi Narain Sao, woke up on hearing some sound and found the door of his shop open. He went near the shop' and' noticed four persons coming out of it. Thereupon he raised bulla when other witnesses came and identified the accused persons. Thereafter, it is said, the informant went into the shop and found some articles, such as rahar, Dhan, Dhania etc. and Rs. 10/- in cash missing. Next morning first information report was lodged at Satgawan police station where the case was instituted. The Police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet and the Sub divisional Magistrate, Giridih, took cognizance on that basis. On trial, as I have said above the petitioners were found guilty under Section 461 of the Code only. 3. The application was filed at Patna. It was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court at Ranchi. Notices of such transfer were given to the petitioners as well as to Mr. S. K. Katriar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners. But in spite of the notices; no one has appeared in this Court to press the application. I, however, bad the assistance of Standing Counsel No. 1 in deciding this application. To me it appears that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto no conviction under Section 461 of the Code can be maintained. But in spite of the notices; no one has appeared in this Court to press the application. I, however, bad the assistance of Standing Counsel No. 1 in deciding this application. To me it appears that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto no conviction under Section 461 of the Code can be maintained. Section 461 reads as follows : "Whoever dishonestly or• with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." The word 'Receptacle', according to the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary Revised Edition),' means 'that in which anything is or may be received or stored'. To me it appears that receptacle means some sort of container or box in which things can be stored and it cannot be a shop. It could be argued that things can be stored or received also in a house or in a shop, but do not think that argument can be available in view of Section 453 of the Code. A definite provision under Section 453 of the Code has been made for committing lurking house trespass or house breaking under this section. If receptacle means, for the purposes of this section, also a house, then there was no necessity of this section as it would have been covered under Section 453 of the Code. Considering all these facts I think that the meaning of the word 'receptacle' as used in Section 461 of the Code cannot be extended to shops. It has to be confined to some container, box or the like. 4. In view of the fact that the expression 'receptacle' does not apply to shops there can be no difficulty in coming to the conc1usion that this section has no application to the facts of this case. The conviction of the petitioners under this section is, therefore, bad and has to be set• aside. 5. The application is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are set aside. Application allowed.