(71) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) Pradip Chandaliya is concerned, the argument advanced by Advocate Shri Ghanekar shows that, the said mobile phone was seized by Police from accused Pradip. According to Advocate Shri Ghanekar, accused Pradip was not aware that it was stolen property and hence according to him, offences under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC are not made out against accused No.2 by name Pradip. So far as an offence under Section 414 of IPC against accused No.2 Pradip is concerned, nothing has been brought on record that this accused assisted in concealing that property and hence so far as accused No.2 Pradip is concerned, an offence under Section 414 is not proved by the prosecution. So far as Section 411 of IPC is concerned as stated earlier, the argument advanced by Advocate Shri Ghanekar as well as the evidence of Police Constable Bahule and API Shri Patare shows that said mobile was found with accused Pradip. 117/­ In this regard, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Trimbak v. State of M.P. Reported in 1954 Cr.L.J.335” wherein three ingredients to prove the offence under Section 411 are given. (1) The stolen property was found in possession of the accused (2) That