(18) 36/­ S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) Thus, relying on the aforesaid ratios Advocate Shri Mote has strongly argued that in the light of said evidence of panch witnesses, the charges levelled against accused by name Javedkhan are not proved beyond doubt and hence benefit of doubt be given to the accused and he be acquitted. 37/­ Advocate Shri Ghanekar for accused No.2 has also relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Trimbak Vs. State of M.P. Reported in 1954 Cri.L.J.335 (Supreme Court) (1)”. In this case, in order to prove the charge under Section 411 of IPC, the guidelines are given and it is held that to prove the charge it has to be proved that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused and some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. 38/­ Advocate Shri Ghanekar has also relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Karnal Singh Uttam Singh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1976 Cri.L.J.842”. In that case, it has been held that where the explanation which the accused had given was good enough to raise