JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No. 755 of 2001, T.R. No. 1058 of 2002, corresponding to Pirtand P.S. Case No. 23 of 2001 which has been registered for the offences punishable u/s 414/413/34 of the I.P.C. 3. The First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that a truck on seeing the Police party had accelerated and subsequently on being overtaken some illegal articles were found inside the truck. It has been alleged that the driver has disclosed that 150 tins of Dalda and 100 tins of mustard oil was loaded in the truck which belongs to the petitioner no. 1 but since no documents could be produced pertaining to the articles loaded in the said truck it was suspected to be stolen property leading to institution of the First Information Report u/s 414/413/34 of the I.P.C. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is the person who was alleged to have jumped out from the truck and disappeared in the jungal when the truck was apprehended and the petitioner no. 2 is the driver of the truck. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the article belongs to the brother of the petitioner no. 1 which had subsequently been released in his favour. It has been submitted that the order granting bail to the petitioners had sufficiently concluded that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioners were transporting stolen property as the documents which was produced by the petitioners was found to be valid and genuine. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in column 7 of the charge-sheet also Investigating Officer has not stated as to whether the property which was seized was indeed stolen property or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in absence of applicability of Section 410 of the I.P.C. which deals with the definition of stolen property no offence u/s 414/413 of the I.P.C has been made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel has also submitted that the First Information Report was instituted as the Police officials were biased since the petitioner no. Learned counsel has also submitted that the First Information Report was instituted as the Police officials were biased since the petitioner no. 2 had not given side to the Police vehicle and had subsequently accelerated. It has been submitted that no offence having been made out against the petitioners the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has submitted that at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered as it is a matter of trial. It has been submitted that sufficient evidence have been collected by the Police and charge-sheet was submitted pursuant to which cognizance was also been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 414/413/34 of the I.P.C. 6. It appears that charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners on 31.05.2001 pursuant to which cognizance was taken on 27.11.2001 by the learned court below. The bail order which was passed in favour of the petitioners dated 05.05.2001 was prior to the submission of the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. In the bail order it appears that a finding has been given that the documents submitted by the petitioners were valid and genuine and their genuiness cannot be doubted. It cannot be deciphered from the said order as to what caused the learned court below to come to such conclusion with respect to the genuiness of the documents relating to the transportation of the articles. It appears that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 414/413/34 of the I.P.C against the petitioners. 7. So far as Section 410 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the same deals with stolen property wherein stolen property is defined as:- “Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property”,…………” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has submitted that no case u/s 414/413 of the I.P.C is made out in absence of the ingredients to constitute a stolen property and has referred to the Judgment in the case of Chand Mal and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 917 . Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has submitted that no case u/s 414/413 of the I.P.C is made out in absence of the ingredients to constitute a stolen property and has referred to the Judgment in the case of Chand Mal and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 917 . The relevant portion of the Judgment under reference is quoted herein below:- “25. It is elementary that there can be no offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property unless the property which is alleged to be the subject of such receiving, answers the description of “stolen property” given in Section 410, Penal Code. Only such property possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or extortion or criminal misappropriation or other offences allied to them as mentioned in Section 410, falls within the definition of “stolen property”. In the instant case, it had been established that the possession of these ornaments and valuables in question had been transferred by theft etc. from Smt. Nazar Bai.” 9. The Judgment under reference has arisen out of a Judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and considering the evidence which was made before the learned trial court consideration was made with respect to the applicability/non applicability of Section 410 of the I.P.C. In the present case the petitioners has challenged the institution of the criminal case in which after charge-sheet cognizance has been taken. The question with respect to the validity of the documents or for that matter as to whether the articles which were seized were stolen property or not as envisaged u/s 410 of the I.P.C., cannot be decided at this stage as the same is a matter to be dealt with during trial. 10. In such view of the matter the Judgment under reference is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 414/413/34 of the I.P.C, this application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.