Order.- The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Davangere in C.C. No. 714 of 1965. He filed an appeal against the said conviction and sentence to the learned Sessions Judge, Chittradurga. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the said appeal. He has now come up in revision to this Court against the said order. Sri Sridharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the prosecution has not at all proved the case against the petitioner. None of the ingredients of section 411, Indian Penal Code, has been made out in this case. He has argued that the alleged statement of the petitioner to the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7, referred to by P.W. 7 in his evidence, is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The alleged statement of the petitioner has not been exhibited in Court. The Investigating Officer does not even say that he recorded the statement in his Case Diary. Even assuming that the statement has been recorded in the Case Diary, copy of the same has not been furnished to the petitioner as required by law. He has also contended that the presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act should not have been raised against the petitioner in this case. He has cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court in Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that it is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt to a person charged under section 411, Indian Penal Code, to prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. Before the prosecution can ask for a conviction under section 411, Indian Penal Code, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court, the first thing they have got to prove is that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused. Before the prosecution can ask for a conviction under section 411, Indian Penal Code, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court, the first thing they have got to prove is that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused. In this case, there does not seem to be any evidence that the alleged stolen properties, M.O. 1 copper pot and M.O. 2 brass “chembu” were in the possession of theaccused-petitioner. P.W. 1 Dhanyakumar and P.W. 2 Wazeer Khan are the two witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the possession of the stolen articles with the accused. P.W. 1 Dhanyakumar, in his evidence, states that one year back P.W. 2 and the petitioner came to sell old vessels. There were a number of copper and brass vessels with them. P.W. 2 told him that the petitioner and he were in need of money. P.W. 1 also stated that these two persons sold to him the said articles and that he paid money to P.W. 2 who paid it to the petitioner. After a few days the police came with the petitioner and P.W. 2 and asked for the vessels. He gave them to the police. It is clear from Jus evidence that both P.W. 2 and the petitioner came and sold some vessels to him. He has specifically stated that they, P.W. 1 and the petitioner, sold the vessels. His evidence does not disclose that it was the petitioner who was in exclusive possession of the articles sold. P.W. 1 also does not identify either M.O. 1 or M.O. 2 in Court as the articles sold by P.W. 2 and the petitioner. P.W. 2 Wazeer Khan states that 9 months before he gave evidence, P.W. 1 gave the vessels for repair. The petitioner was with him. The police came to his shop and recovered those articles. His evidence does not disclose that there was any sale by the petitioner. All that he says is that P.W. 1 and the petitioner gave some vessels for repair. He has also not identified either M.O. 1 or M.O. 2. The prosecution has not proved the important link in the case that the articles alleged to be stolen. M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 were the very articles which were either sold or given for repair to P.Ws. 1 and 2. As stated earlier, the evidence of P.Ws. He has also not identified either M.O. 1 or M.O. 2. The prosecution has not proved the important link in the case that the articles alleged to be stolen. M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 were the very articles which were either sold or given for repair to P.Ws. 1 and 2. As stated earlier, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 does not also disclose that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of any of those articles, which were given to P.Ws. 1 and 2. So, the very first step to bring home the charge under section 411, Indian Penal Code, that is, exclusive possession of the stolen articles, has not been made out by the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is opposed to the alleged section 27 statement of the petitioner. The prosecution evidence also shows that the articles sold or given for repair were about 1½ years after the alleged theft. The learned Magistrate has relied on section 114(a)of the Evidence Act to bring home the guilt to the petitioner. Section 114(a) states that the Court may presume 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. It is clear from this that the possession of the stolen goods must be soon after the theft and only then an inference can be drawn that the person is either the thief or receiver of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. As stated already, the evidence in this case discloses that the petitioner and some other person sold some unidentified articles one or 1½ years after the alleged theft and in such circumstances, no inference can be drawn that they were found in possession of stolen goods Soon after the theft. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in paragraph 9 of his order as follows: “The appellant appears to have committed theft of several articles apart from the M.Os. produced in this case.” It is rather surprising that the learned Judge should have made an observation like this. Evidence of bad character of an accused is not admissible in evidence unless the accused lets in evidence that he has got good character. produced in this case.” It is rather surprising that the learned Judge should have made an observation like this. Evidence of bad character of an accused is not admissible in evidence unless the accused lets in evidence that he has got good character. The learned Judge’s attention is drawn to section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows: “In Criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.” For the reasons mentioned above, I am of opinion that the prosecution has not made out a case against the petitioner of an offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner are set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioner stand cancelled. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.