JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition the petitioner has challenged his conviction under S. 411 IPC and in the alternative has prayed for giving him the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act instead of maintaining the sentence imposed on him by learned appellate court. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one Shersingh lodged a written report on March 13, 1985 at 7.00 AM at police station Kisban-garhbas alleging that one electric motor make GEC having 10 HP has been removed by somebody from his room which was having a look. On receipt of this report a case under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation one Kailash Singh was arrested on April 10, 1985. On an information having been furnished by him the electric motor was recovered from the shop of the accused-petitioner as Kala Singh had given the information that he had sold the same to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2503/-. Two more persons, namely. Maghsing and Dildar Singh were also arrayed as accused in the case. Charge-sheet was submitted against all the four and three of them were tried for offence under Sections 457, and 380 IPC, while the petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 457, 411 IPC. All the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 14 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. After hearing the parties trial court acquitted Kalasingh, Maghsingh and Dildarsingh but convicted the accused-petitioner under S 411 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the appellate court maintained the conviction but reduced sentence which has been challenged in this court. 3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the acquittal of the principal accused in this case, namely, the persons who are alleged to have committed the theft conviction ought not to have been maintained that of the petitioner, particularly when the information given under S. 27 of the Evidence Act by Kalasingb for recovery has not been relied upon. It is submitted that even if the prosecution story is taken on its face no offence is made out because ingredients of S. 411 IPC are not at all satisfied in the instant case, particularly because even the information given under S. 27 of the Evidence Act has not been found proved legally in the case as the investigating officer Rajendra Singh has not appeared in the witness box. Besides this, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had purchased the said electric motor from Kalasingh for a sum of Rs. 2500/ and as such he was the bonafide purchaser for value. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods he received were stollen and that he received the same dishonestly. In these circumstances it is submitted that no case under S 411 IPC is proved against the petitioner. In the alternative learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the provisions of S. 360 Cr. P.C. and no proper reasons have been assigned under S. 361 Cr. P.C. though this court has repeatedly held that it is obligatory to assign cogent and proper reasons for refusing the benefit of Probation of ' Offenders Act or S. 360 Cr. P.C. to the accused, particularly in case where maximum sentence provided is less than 7 years. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is concurrent finding of fact that the motor has been recovered from the shop of the petitioner and he therefore, cannot escape the conviction. It is submitted that even if the main accused is not convicted even then conviction can be based that of the petitioner. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the entire record, 6. It is submitted that even if the main accused is not convicted even then conviction can be based that of the petitioner. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the entire record, 6. At the outset I mention that of the acquittal of accused persons Kalasingh, Maghsingh and Dildarsingh the prosecution case is weakened, since against the principal accused Kala Singh offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC has not been held to be proved and one of the reasons is that the information leading to the recovery has not been found proved as Rajendra singh had not appeared in witness box if that be so, then it is astonishing to note that still dishonest intention is attributed by the prosecution to the accused, particularly when the prosecution itself came with a case that information which was furnished by Lalasingh in pursuance of which recovery made was that the accused Papiya had purchased the same for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-. Assuming for a moment that theft by Kalasingh would have been proved even then for bringing the offence under S. 411 IPC against the petitioner, it was obligatory for the prosecution to have established the ingredients of S. 411 IPC reads as under : "S. 411-Dishonestly receiving stolen property Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both". Therefore, the grave man of the charge which ought to have been proved was dishonestly receiving the property and then the accused should have the knowledge or should have reason to believe that the same was stolen property. There is no evidence worth the name on record to suggest that the accused dishonestly received the property. On the contrary the prosecution itself has come with a case of his purchasing motor for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. Whether the amount of Rs. 2500/- was so low that it was so hopelessly inadequate which could have given an inference that the property was purchased for a song till then it cannot be said that he took it dishonestly. 2500/-. Whether the amount of Rs. 2500/- was so low that it was so hopelessly inadequate which could have given an inference that the property was purchased for a song till then it cannot be said that he took it dishonestly. For the purpose of showing dishonest intention or the knowledge it is essential for the prosecution to bring some sort of circumstance to indicate shady transaction or some such circumstance which irresistibly gives rise to a conclusion that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the transaction he was entering into was of a property which was stolen The prosecution has not even brought the evidence on record whether the motor which had been purchased by Kalasingh atleast 3 years before this sale could fetch more than Rs. 2500/-in market. Kalasingh in his statement has relied on a document Ex. P. 7 through which he has alleged to have purchased the same which shows the price as Rs. 10,450/-, but a careful perusal of the document shows that this was not the price of the motor alone but there were several other articles including the fodder cutting machine, assesearies of the floor mill, the cut out starters and several other articles. Thus the cost of the motor has not been brought on record. Therefore, from the prosecution evidence it is impossible to conceive of that there is evidence to infer that the petitioner either dishonestly received the property or that he had the knowledge or had reason to believe that the motor was stolen. Yet there is another snag that in the absence of Kalesingh once he is acquitted and the same has not been challenged it cannot be said at all that he received the property from Kalasingh and, therefore, the question of knowledge or that he had reason to believe cannot be answered in favour of the prosecution and the conviction of the petitioner for offence under S. 411 IPC cannot be sustained. 7. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any manner of reasonable doubt. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion I accept this revision petition set aside the conviction of the accused petitioner and acquit him of the charge for offence under S. 411 IPC He is in jail. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion I accept this revision petition set aside the conviction of the accused petitioner and acquit him of the charge for offence under S. 411 IPC He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Revision allowed. *******