JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was ordered to be charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 382, 411, 412 and 454 read with Section 34, IPC, as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel contends that a person can be charged for the offence punishable under Section 412, IPC, only when it is prima-facie established that he had dishonestly retained or was found in possession of the stolen property out of a dacoity. 3. Notice of motion of the criminal revision petition was issued to the State of Punjab and in response thereof, Mr.R.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments with regard to the framing of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 412, IPC, on the premise that according to the prosecution case itself, no dacoity was committed by the petitioner and his co-accused and they had not retained the stolen property out of dacoity, therefore, the ingredients of Section 412, IPC, are not attracted. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Ors. 1991(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 89. 5. Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the petitioner and his co-accused were not involved in dacoity and no material stolen during the commission of dacoity was recovered from the petitioner or his co-accused. 6. The present petition has been filed by Kanwalpreet Singh @ Kanwal (accused) only. The co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Kulwinder Singh @ Kinder and Baljit Singh @ Gagi were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 412, IPC. Allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused are similar. Therefore, this Court took suo motu notice with regard to the charge framed under Section 412, IPC, against the co-accused of the petitioner also and issued notice to the State and directed the learned counsel for the State to advance arguments as to how the charge under Section 412, IPC, is sustainable against the coaccused of the petitioner as well. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the State has fairly conceded that against the petitioner and his co-accused, the offence punishable under Section 412, IPC, is not made out. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. 9. Before meeting out the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apposite to go trough the substantive provision, as enshrined in Section 412, IPC, which reads as under:- “412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoity, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 10. Perusal of the above provision reveals that for securing the conviction under Section 412, IPC, the Court must come to the conclusion that the dishonest receiver of the stolen property should be in possession of the same knowing or having reason to believe that its possession has been transferred by the person, who committed the dacoity. 11. The allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner and his co-accused are that they entered into the house of the complainant and committed extortions by forcibly taking away the ornaments and the cash from his (complainant) house. After six months of the occurrence, the petitioner and his coaccused were arrested and the stolen property was recovered. 12. From any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that ingredients of dacoity, as enshrined in Section 391, IPC, or Section 412, IPC, are attracted in the present case. Concededly, the petitioner and his co-accused have not been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 395, IPC, where the punishment for dacoity has been prescribed. 13. Learned trial Court without application of mind and without assigning good reasons ordered that the petitioner and his co-accused be charge-sheeted under various Sections including Section 412, IPC. Concededly, the petitioner and his co-accused have not been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 395, IPC, where the punishment for dacoity has been prescribed. 13. Learned trial Court without application of mind and without assigning good reasons ordered that the petitioner and his co-accused be charge-sheeted under various Sections including Section 412, IPC. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order framing of charge for other offences except under Section 412, IPC, therefore, this Court has confined its discussion with regard to the framing of charge under Section 412, IPC, only. Since the essential ingredients of Section 412, IPC, are not attracted, therefore, the order framing charge under Section 412, IPC, against the petitioner and his co-accused cannot sustain. In the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court laid down the following parameters for consideration at the time of framing of the charges:- “(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By an large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Judge which (sic) under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 14. In the case of Narayan Singh v. State of M.P., 1994 SCC (Criminal) 233, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that merely because certain stolen articles were recovered from the accused, they cannot be held to be dacaoits by invoking the presumption unless there is a recent possession. 15. In the case in hand, the stolen articles were concededly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused after about six months of the occurrence. Therefore, the presumption of dacoity cannot be raised. Even otherwise, according to the prosecution version itself, there are no allegation of commission of dacoity. 16. As a sequel of the above discussion, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed and the charge under Section 412, IPC, framed against the petitioner and his co-accused is set aside. Learned trial Court would now proceed further with the case in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------