Order.- This is a revision petition filed by the Petitioner against his conviction and sentence under section 98 of the Mysore Police Act. The petitioner was a male Nurse Orderly (M.N.O.) in the Government Hospital at Mangalore on 27th October, 1965. Previous to that day, it appears, there were thefts in the hospital and therefore P.W. 2, Louis Tauro, who was a lascar in the hospital had been deputed to keep a watch in order to detect thefts. On 27th October, 1965, at about 9 p.m. P.W. 2 was on his duty in the hospital compound. At that time, he saw the petitioner going on bicycle from the hospital. He called him and the petitioner came near him. After a brief talk, the petitioner proceeded on his cycle towards the town stating that he was going home for his food. P.W. 2 seeing a bag on the carrier of the cycle, became suspicious and engaged an auto-ricksha and went behind the petitioner with one Sundaram who was a sweeper in the hospital. Both of them stopped the petitioner in the Gandhi Square which is about one furlong from the hospital. P.W. 2 questioned the petitioner as to what he was carrying in his bag. The petitioner replied that he was carrying nothing. P.W. 2 noticed a 16 ozs. bottle containing hot milk in the bag M.O. 1. He took him back to the hospital and produced him before P.W. 1 Dr. Jayakrishna. P.W. 1 found in the bag M.Os. 1, 2 to 14. The petitioner claimed M.O. 2, a bottle containing milk and a roll of bandage as his. He disclaimed the other articles. Dr. Jayakrishna sent intimation to the Police Station stating that the petitioner was caught when stealing hospital properties and that needful may be done. Shankara, Head Constable of Pendeshwara Police station who has not been examined in this case, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. 2, Louis Tauro. He registered a case against the petitioner under section 380, Indian Penal Code. Next day, P.W. 4 Monterio, Sub-Inspector of Police, seized M.Os. 1 to 14 and after due investigation placed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under section 98 of the Mysore Police Act as the petitioner when questioned failed to give a satisfactory account for the possession of the M.Os. Next day, P.W. 4 Monterio, Sub-Inspector of Police, seized M.Os. 1 to 14 and after due investigation placed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under section 98 of the Mysore Police Act as the petitioner when questioned failed to give a satisfactory account for the possession of the M.Os. Section 98 of the Mysore Police Act is as follows: “Whoever has in his possession or conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property, or property fraudulently obtained, shall if he fails to account for such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both.” For conviction under this section, a person must be found to be in possession or proved to have been in possession of any article and there must be reason to believe that that property is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. Mr. A.G. Holla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that on the facts found, the petitioner would not be guilty of the offence under section 98 of the Act as the prosecution has not established that the articles were found in the possession of the petitioner and even assuming that they were found in his possession, on the materials placed before the Court, there is no reason to believe that the properties were stolen, or properties fraudulently obtained. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the necessary ingredients of this offence are (1) that the petitioner at the relevant time Was a male nurse orderly in the Government Hospital; (2) that he was found in possession of the articles when P.W. 2 apprehended him at about 9 p.m. and (3) the failure of the petitioner to account satisfactorily to the Police the possession of the articles. There is no dispute that on the relevant date the petitioner was working as as a male nurse orderly in the Government hospital. What is disputed in this case is that when P.W. 2 apprehended the petitioner near the Gandhi Square at 9 p.m. the articles in question were not with him. There is no dispute that on the relevant date the petitioner was working as as a male nurse orderly in the Government hospital. What is disputed in this case is that when P.W. 2 apprehended the petitioner near the Gandhi Square at 9 p.m. the articles in question were not with him. The case of the petitioner is that he talked with P.W. 2 near the hospital for a short time and thereafter left that place stating that he was going tohis house for food. Some time later, when he was in the bazaar after purchasing milk and a roll of bandage, P.W. 2 took him to the hospital stating that he was wanted by the Doctor. While going, according to him, P.W. 2 took his bag M.O. 1 and produced it before Dr. Jayakrishna, P.W. 1. He has denied that M.Os. 3 to 14 were in M.O. 1 when he was apprehended by P.W. 2 near the Gandhi Square. The admission of P.W. 2 is that when he apprehended the petitioner on suspicion, he found in the bag a 16 ozs. bottle, M.O. 2, containing hot milk. It is evident from his version that he must have seen the bag at the Gandhi Square itself. He does not say that at that time he saw M.Os. 3 to 14 in the bag. One Sundaram, who was a sweeper, in the hospital, was with him at that time and he has not been examined in this case. P.W. 1, no doubt, has stated that the bag contained these articles. The Head Constable Shankara, who went to the hospital on the information given by P.W. 1 has not seized these articles that night. It is only the next day these articles were seized by the Sub-Inspector. Therefore, doubt arises on the claim of the prosecution whether the articles were found in the possession of the petitioner. Although the prosecution case Was that the petitioner was caught while stealing the articles of the hospital, no evidence was let in to prove that the articles belonged to the hospital. Nor is there any evidence to indicate that the articles are stolen properties or properties obtained fraudulently. The positive evidence in this case is that the articles did not belong to the hospital. Nor is there any evidence to indicate that the articles are stolen properties or properties obtained fraudulently. The positive evidence in this case is that the articles did not belong to the hospital. The only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the petitioner did not account tothe Police the possession of the articles. It is only when the prosecution has established that there is reason to believe that the articles are stolen properties or properties obtained fraudulently, the petitioner has got to account satisfactorily. As the prosecution has not established that, there is no need for the petitioner to explain his possession. Merely on the ground that the petitioner failed to give a satisfactory explanation for his possession of the articles, he cannot be found guilty of the offence under section 98 of the Act. In the circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed under section 98 of the Act are set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.