(73) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) appears that accused Jawed was his regular customer and he must be aware about the activities of Javed. Accused Pradeep must have enquired to accused Javed about said mobile. He must have understood that the person who is not in a position to pay bill, from where & how he had brought such a costly mobile. But Pradip did not take care of all these facts. That impliedly shows that Pradip must be aware about the fact that Javed had obtained it by committing theft and still he kept it with him. So far earlier two ingredients are concerned certainly it is proved that it was of Mansi & then Javed obtained its custody by committing theft. Hence prosecution has established all three ingredients so far as stolen mobile is concerned. 121/­ That apart, immediately after the theft i.e after five to six days, said mobile was found with accused Pradip. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the Court may presume that the man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. In this case, no account for possession of said mobile is given by accused Pradip. So, under such circumstance and in the light of said presumption, I am of the opinion that though