Judgment : 1. The petitioner, who is the de facto-complainant in crime No.38 of 2010, has filed this writ petition challenging the action of Respondent No.4 in filing the charge-sheet in S.C.No.164 of 2012 on the file of the District Sessions Court, Nellore, without recovery of stolen property, as illegal. 2. Briefly the facts are, the petitioner was married to one Smt.Yeramaka Sunandamma. They were separated in the year 1984 after the marriage was dissolved at the instance of the wife. Towards the end of 2009, Smt.Yeramaka Sunandamma joined the petitioner at Gudur on the pretext that she wanted to perform the second marriage of their son Santhan Sagar Reddy. One week prior to 15-04-2010, she went to Nellore and brought several people armed with deadly weapons and trespassed into the house of the petitioner on 15-04-2010. The petitioner was tied with ropes and after closing his mouth, they took away certain household articles, gold and silver ornaments and documents such as, Pattedar Passbooks, Stamp Papers, Pronotes, etc., A complaint to the said effect was lodged by the petitioner on 06-05-2010. The 04th Respondent after conducting investigation filed charge-sheet against Sunandamma and five others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 450, 342, 347, 384, 379, 506, 424 read with 149 I.P.C. It appears that schedule is fixed by the Court for trial. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The sole and substantive ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 04th respondent has filed the charge-sheet without recovery of the stolen property. According to the learned counsel, if the stolen property is not produced before the Court as material objects, it would affect the prosecution and there is every likelihood for the acquittal of the accused. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the trial cannot take place unless the stolen property is recovered and produced before the Court. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on the other hand submits that the prosecution of the accused will no way be affected though stolen property is not produced before the Court. The charges against the accused would independently stand and have to be established on their own merits. Thus, the trial of the accused will not be vitiated merely because the property is not produced. 5. The charges against the accused would independently stand and have to be established on their own merits. Thus, the trial of the accused will not be vitiated merely because the property is not produced. 5. As can be seen from the charge-sheet, the accused are charged for the offences under Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 450 (House-trespass), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 347 (wrongful confinement), 384 (punishment for extortion), 379 (punishment for theft), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 424 (concealment of property) read with Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code. The offences punishable under Sections 143, 450, 342, 347, 384 and 506 I.P.C. are no way connected with the property. Therefore, for proving the offences under these sections proof of stolen property is not necessary at all. 6. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for theft. Section 378 I.P.C. defines the ‘theft’ as follows: “whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft”. Therefore, the ingredients of theft are that any moveable property must have been dishonestly moved from the possession of a person with a dishonest intention and such a removal should be without the consent of the person. In other words, transfer of possession of the property without consent forms an essential ingredient of an offence of theft and for proving the offence, production of property is not a necessary requirement. The accused cannot be absolved only on the ground of non-production of stolen property. 7. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that stolen property has not been produced. The charge-sheet discloses that P.W.10, who searched the house of the accused on 21-01-2011, did not find the stolen articles and that they were concealed somewhere. For concealment of the stolen property, the accused is punishable under Section 424 I.P.C. and the said offence is charged against the accused. 8. Therefore, for proving the offences against the accused as per the charge-sheet, none of the charges require the production of the stolen property, as each of them has to be independently proved by the prosecution on its own merits. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits. 9. 8. Therefore, for proving the offences against the accused as per the charge-sheet, none of the charges require the production of the stolen property, as each of them has to be independently proved by the prosecution on its own merits. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.9010 of 2013 stands closed.