ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 20.12.2011 in Crl.A.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 18.06.2010 in C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 23.12.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3848 of 2011. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that : (i) On 18.11.2007, the petitioner’s Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of M.O.1 and M.O.2 Hero Honda Motorcycles bearing Registration Nos. AP 26 K 7155 and AP 26 F 9790 and accused No.3 was found in possession of some chassis parts, which were subject matter of theft in Cr.No.182 of 2007 of Balaji Nagar Police Station, Nellore. (ii) After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.651 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months, the accused No.3 was found not guilty and accordingly, he was acquitted. However, the trial Court did not found them guilty of the offence under Section 379 of IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.174 of 2009, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore, and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 18.08.2010, by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2. 6. Heard Sri M.D. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 7. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2. 6. Heard Sri M.D. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 8. Sri M.D. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Court below erred in confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court in a mechanical fashion. He further submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the ingredients of Section 411 I.P.C. are not made out. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners basing on the mere evidence of P.Ws1 to 5 and prays to consider this present revision. 10. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborating with the contents of Ex.P.1 report. He further submits that the accused/petitioners are the receivers of the stolen property and the presumption under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against them. He further submits that there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court as well as Sessions Court and thereby, the present revision has no legs to stand and hence, he requests to dismiss this criminal revision case. 11. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are discrepancies in the testimonies of PW3 and PW5 who are the mediator and Investigation Officer. On the other hand, it is the version of the prosecution that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 corroborates with the entire case of the prosecution and the Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners/accused. 12. On the other hand, it is the version of the prosecution that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 corroborates with the entire case of the prosecution and the Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners/accused. 12. On perusal, this Court finds that on receipt of the Ex.P1 report from PW1, the PW5 Investigating Officer registered a case in Cr.No.182 of 2007 for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. under Ex.P7. PW5 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. It is further deposed in the testimony of PW5 that on 26.11.2007 on suspicion, he arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of PW3 and PW4 mediators and recovered the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.AP 26K 7155 from the possession of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 13. It is further deposed that on interrogation, the accused No.1 led the Police to his house in Rebella Village, where M.O.2 bike bearing registration No.AP-26-F-9790 was found and the same was seized under the cover of Ex.P3 Seizure Mahazarnama. It is further deposed that accused No.1 also led the Investigating Officer to Barracks to the shop of accused No.3, where he seized some stolen chassis parts from the possession of accused No.3. 14. On perusal of testimony of PW-3, it goes to show that on 26.11.2007 at 02.30 pm they went to the house of accused No.1 and seized the stolen motor cycles in the presence of PW-3. On perusal of the testimony of PW-5 it was mentioned that they arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 at Chinthareddypalem cross road on NH-5. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that there is no consistency in the testimony of PW3 and PW5. He further submits that both the Courts below had not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record and ultimately, convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 and hence, he prays to allow this criminal revision case by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. 16. On close perusal of the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5, they show that admittedly PW4 who is also a mediator, did not support the case and there is no consistency in his cross examination and much inconsistencies found from the testimonies of PW3. 17. 16. On close perusal of the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5, they show that admittedly PW4 who is also a mediator, did not support the case and there is no consistency in his cross examination and much inconsistencies found from the testimonies of PW3. 17. On perusal of the testimony of PW3, it was deposed that M.O.1 was seized at near Vijay Mahal gate whereas in chief examination he stated that at that place two vehicles were seized. In fact as could be seen from the cross examination, only one vehicle was seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2. On cross examination of PW3, it is elicited that though there are many people available at tempo taxi stand, PW5 Investigating Officer took the confidence of the persons who are at Vijay Mahal Gate. It is very clear that the evidence of PW3 itself is inconsistent regarding the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. 18. Now it is relevant to mention Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As per that section, the police shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do or otherwise, the Police should clearly state that why he did not take independent witness from that locality, PW5 did not depose in his testimony as to why he had not taken independent witness from the tempo taxi stand. 19. As discussed above, it all goes to show that the evidence of PW3 does not attract the confidence of this Court to be relied on and the trustworthiness of the PW3 is doubtful. If the evidence of PW3 is doubtful, the conviction, if at all, should be given basing on the testimony of Investigating Officer. As this Court already discussed above, the Investigating Officer has to state why he has not secured the independent witness from the respectable inhabitants of the locality, which is mandatory for the nature of these types of cases, if not, he has to depose in his evidence. As this Court already discussed above, the Investigating Officer has to state why he has not secured the independent witness from the respectable inhabitants of the locality, which is mandatory for the nature of these types of cases, if not, he has to depose in his evidence. Moreover, PW5 says that on 26.11.2007 at 2:30 pm seized Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-26-K-7155 alone in the presence of PW3 and LW5 Naziruddin and nowhere it is stated that he tried to secure the presence of independent witness except the testimony of PW3 and LW5. According to PW5, they visited the Rebella Village on the confession made by accused No.1, where they seized 2nd vehicle bearing registration No.AP-26-F-9790. 20. From the above testimony, it should be seen whether the prosecution proved that the accused received stolen property covered under M.O.1 and M.O.2. It is settled law and mandatory for the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of knowledge of the accused that the goods are stolen property. To bring home the guilt under Section 411 of IPC, the following four segments has to be proven by the prosecution namely (i). dishonestly; (ii). receives or retains any stolen property; (iii). knowing; or (iv). having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. These four aspects shall be established by the prosecution against the accused for the said offence. 21. ‘Dishonestly’ is defined under Section 23 I.P.C. as “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing ‘dishonestly’.” The key ingredient for a crime is, of course, mens rea. This was categorically explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimla v. Delhi Administration, 1905 SCC Online Mad 87. 22. This was categorically explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimla v. Delhi Administration, 1905 SCC Online Mad 87. 22. In this connection, it is appropriate to mention a reference in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to decide the matter in issue, in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 676 , wherein it was held that “for successful prosecution under Section 411, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend nature of goods procured by him and further initial possession of goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable.” 23. So, the APEX Court clinchingly held that to prove the offence under Section 411 of IPC, it is mandatory for the prosecution to establish that retaining of goods with the knowledge that it is a stolen property. 24. In the present case on hand also M.O.1 and M.O.2 are said to be seized from the possession of petitioners Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 on the confession made by them, but, this Court on perusal of material placed on record, the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 have knowledge that M.O.1 and M.O.2 are stolen property. Just because PW5 coupled with the evidence of PW4 stated that the property said to be recovered from the possession of petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2, doesn’t mean to say that the possession of M.O.1 and M.O.2 were with their knowledge that they are stolen property and no material was placed on record to say that petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of M.O.1 and M.O.2 which are of theft property and no material on record to say that accused using the theft property. 25. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Case (referred to supra), it is clear in all facts, prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners dishonestly received the stolen property with the knowledge and belief that the goods found in his possession were stolen. 26. 25. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Case (referred to supra), it is clear in all facts, prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners dishonestly received the stolen property with the knowledge and belief that the goods found in his possession were stolen. 26. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Court, under Section 411 of IPC are liable to be set aside. 27. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 vide judgment dated 23.10.2009 in C.C.No.651 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 18.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.174 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Court, Nellore Division, Nellore, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioners Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.