(74) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) accused Pradip cannot be said to be a thief, still he is supposed to be the receiver of stolen property and hence I am of the opinion that an offence under Section 411 of IPC is proved against accused Pradip. Hence accused cannot take shelter of the ratios in above cases on which his advocate has placed reliance. 122/­ So far as accused No.2 Ram Bodkhe is concerned, the evidence of Investigation Officer P.I. Shri Borse speaks that after obtaining Police Custody of accused Ram Bodkhe, on 23.6.2009 he interrogated towards Ram Bodkhe and he showed readiness to produce the gold ring received by him from accused Jawed As stated by accused Ram, they had gone to Tulsi Chamber, behind hotel Puncham. Then after as per the statement (Exh­64) given by Ram Bodkhe, he had taken out said gold ring which was kept by him in the electric motor room of Tulsi chamber. He produced it before P.I.Shri Borse and therefore, it was seized by him under panchnama at Exh­65. It appears that on this ring, the logo RC Bafna as “RC” was carved. 123/­ The evidence of informant Aniket Deshpande and his friend by name Damodhar Ghuge shows that Damodhar Ghuge had gifted that ring to Aniket which