(14) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) said to be proved. Similarly, Advocate Shri Barlota has also argued that the memorandum­cum­discovery panchnama in respect of alleged gold ring recovered at the instance of accused Ram Bodkhe is not proved and therefore, he has also submitted that the charge levelled against accused Ram Bodkhe is not proved beyond doubt. 29/­ So far as accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya is concerned, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has argued that accused Pradip is not disputing that the mobile is that of Mansi. According to him, said mobile was handed over by accused Pradip to Police and that fact is also not disputed. However, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has submitted that the accused Pradeep had no knowledge that said mobile was stolen by accused Javed from the house of Mansi. Therefore, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has submitted that the fact that the mobile was stolen is not established nor it is proved that Pradip purchased stolen mobile knowingly that it was stolen. 30/­ Advocate Shri Ghanekar has also submitted that because of the aforesaid fact, charge under Section 411 of IPC is not proved and at the most, accused Pradip could have been the best witness of the said fact. He has also argued