(72) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got its possession, and (3) The accused had knowledge that the property was stolen. Advocate Shri Ghanekar has also relied on the ratio in the case of “Karnalsingh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1976 Cr.L.J.842”. In that case, it has been held that where the explanation which the accused had given was good enough to raise serious doubts about the sustainability of a charge under Section 411, IPC, the accused was held entitled to an acquittal. 118/­ Advocate Shri Ghanekar has also relied on the ratio in the case of “Mohan Lal v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1979, CRI.L.J.1328” which also speaks that the accused must be shown to have reason to believe that the property was stolen. 119/­ Hence in the light of said ratios, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has argued that the accused by name Pradeep was not having any knowledge that the mobile was stolen property and hence he has prayed to acquit the accused. 120/­ But it seems that accused Pradeep Chandaliya kept that mobile with him. He did not ask Jawed from where he brought it. He did not ask for its receipt. It