Initial Possession Of Stolen Goods May Not Be Illegal But Retaining It Knowing That It Was Stolen Makes It...
Principle: Possession of Stolen Goods — Initial Possession vs. Retention with Knowledge
The possession of stolen goods becomes a criminal offence primarily when a person knowingly retains or deals with goods that they know or have reason to believe are stolen. Mere initial possession, especially if innocent or without knowledge of theft, is not automatically illegal.
Explanation
1. Initial Possession May Be Innocent
A person may come into possession of goods without knowledge that they are stolen.
For example, buying from a third party or receiving as a gift without suspicion.
Innocent possession is not criminal unless the person knows or willfully ignores the fact that goods are stolen.
2. Knowledge or Reason to Believe
The key element is knowledge or willful blindness to the stolen nature of goods.
When the person knows or has reason to believe that goods are stolen and still retains, conceals, or disposes of them, it becomes an offence under Section 411 of IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property).
Mere possession without knowledge does not attract criminal liability.
3. Retention of Stolen Goods
Retention or dealing with stolen goods with knowledge constitutes an offence.
The offence requires mens rea (guilty mind) – dishonest intention or knowledge.
Relevant Sections of Law
Section 411 IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Section 378 IPC – Theft (relates to the original act).
Section 414 IPC – Receiving stolen property.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Confession made during investigation.
Key Case Laws
1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 549
The Supreme Court held that mere possession of stolen goods is not an offence unless the person has knowledge or reason to believe the goods are stolen.
2. Rama Ram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 12
The Court observed that knowledge of theft is essential for convicting a person under Section 411 IPC.
Mere possession or purchase without knowledge is not punishable.
3. Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 679
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe the goods were stolen to attract Section 411.
4. M.L. Tiwari v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 430
Held that if a person comes into possession innocently but continues possession after acquiring knowledge that the goods were stolen, the offence is made out.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1442
The Court reiterated that possession combined with knowledge and dishonest intention constitutes the offence.
Without knowledge, mere possession does not suffice.
Summary
Initial possession of stolen goods without knowledge is not criminal.
Retention, concealment, or dealing with stolen goods knowing they are stolen amounts to an offence under Section 411 IPC.
Knowledge or reason to believe is an essential ingredient.
Courts require proof of mens rea before convicting.
Innocent buyers or possessors without knowledge are protected from criminal liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments