Ram Labhaya, J.
1. The petitioner in this case was eon-victed by the Magistrate, 1st Clasa, Nowgocg, Under Section 411, Penal Code. He was sentenced to pay a fine of rs. so and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, His petition of revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. He has now petitioned to this Court for interference.
2. The facts leading to this revision petition are that the complainant who had purchased a mare from one Eatitam found it miaeing in the month of Magh. On 22nd April 1947 he informed the police about its disappearance. On 11th August 1947 he found that the mare waa in the possession of Abdul Majid, petitioner. He again lodged an ejahar with the police and later riled a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate. The complaint was against Abdul M&jid; and Forman Saikh from whom, it was alleged, Abdul Majid had purchased the mare. At the trial the defence pat forward was that Forman Sheikh had purchased the mare from the village Goanbura and had sold it to Abdul Majid.
3. Eatiram supported the complainant. He deposed that the mare belonged to him and he had sold it to the complainant by Ex. 1, The village Goanbura supported the accused. He claimed that tie mace belonged to him and he bad sold it to Forman, who in turn had sold it to Abdul Majid. The learned Magistrate observed that the main point for decision in the case waa whether the mare belonged to the complainant or that it was owned by the Goanbura, who is alleged to have sold it to Forman from whom Abdul Majid got it by purchase. On this point, he relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. His conclusion was that the mare belonged to Katiram and it had been sold to the complainant. In spite of absence of identification marks in the ejahar lodged by the oomplainant, he found no difficulty in coming to that conclu-si'od. He disbelieved the statement of the Goanbura and rejected the version given by him about its sale to Forman. On this finding he convicted both Abdul Majid and Forman Sheikh.
4. Abdul Majid stated that he had purchased it from Forman. Forman admits that he sold the mare to Abdul Majid. Assuming that the statement of the Goanbura that he gold the mare to Forman is not worthy of credence, the state, ment of Forman that he sold the mare to Abdul Majid cannot be ignored. If Abdul Majid pur-ohasea the mare from Forman then Abdul Majid oan be convicted only if it can be found that he knew or had reason to believe that the mare had been stolen. There is no such allegation against Abdul Majid; nor is there any finding to that effect. This was the essential ingredient of the offenoe Under Section 411, Penal Code. The accused Bhould dishonestly receive or retain the stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. There is nothing in the transaction itself from Forman to Abdul Majid to suggest that Abdul Majid had such knowledge. In fact, there is absolutely no suggestion from any quarter that Abdul Majid had knowledge that the mare was stolen.
5. Conviction of Abdul Majid, therefore, is wholly unsustainable. The petition is allowed-The conviotion of Abdul Majid is quashed. He is acquitted and fine, if paid by him, shall be-refunded,