(19) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) serious doubts about the sustainability of a charge under Section 411, IPC. Hence it was held that accused was entitled to an acquittal. 39/­ Advocate Shri Ghanekar has also relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Mohanlal v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1979 Cri.L.J.1328”, wherein it has been observed that accused must be shown to have reason to believe that the property was stolen. 40/­ Thus relying on these ratios, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has argued that the prosecution has not established that accused Pradip Chandaliya was having knowledge that the property was stolen and therefore, he has prayed to acquit the accused. 41/­ Advocate Shri Barlota for accused No.3, has relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Kuldip Singh v. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 771”. In this case, the witness to recovery stated that he had not seen actual recovery and he had not entered inside hut of accused from where articles were recovered. Thus, it was held that recovery of stolen article was not proved. According to Advocate Shri Barlota, when the panch