Skip to main content

Law on Section 411 IPC

Image
By Vivek Nasa

 Understanding Section 411 IPC

By Vivek Nasa Associates


In the case of Trimbak vs. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 39, the Court clarified that to prove a charge under Section 411 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish:

  1. The accused was in possession of stolen property.

  2. Someone else had possession of the property before the accused.

  3. The accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen.

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the accused knew the gold was stolen. The identity of the gold was also not confirmed, so it could not be classified as stolen property. Even if the accused received demand drafts and purchased gold bars, the prosecution needed to show the accused knew the drafts were obtained fraudulently or was part of a conspiracy.

Vivek Nasa Associates

Vivek Nasa Associates is a trusted criminal defense law firm in Gurugram, specializing in bail, anticipatory bail, court representation, and trial defense. Our expert lawyers handle cases like 498A, domestic violence, cybercrime, white-collar crimes, PMLA, and cheque bounce disputes.

If you need urgent bail assistance in Gurugram or legal help for cybercrime, IT offenses, or crimes against women, contact us today. We offer free consultations and are known as the best criminal defense lawyers near Gurugram District Court.

Visit Vivek Nasa Associates for reliable legal support in Gurugram.

Contact Vivek Nasa Associates Today

Are you looking for expert legal guidance on Will drafting, estate planning, or probate in Delhi, Noida, or Gurugram? At Vivek Nasa Associates, we are committed to helping you protect your legacy and secure your loved ones’ future.

Contact us today to schedule a consultation with our experienced lawyers. Let us help you navigate the complexities of probate with confidence and clarity.

 

Contact Information

Vivek Nasa Associates Address :

 

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Advocate Vivek Nasa on Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Traffic Challans

By Vivek Nasa
Advocate Vivek Nasa on Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Traffic Challans By Vivek Nasa FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Vivek Nasa & Associates Chamber no 11, Second Floor, Lawyers Chambers Block A, Gurgaon Civil Court, National Highway 8, Gurugram, Haryana 122001, India  Get Directions Phone:   +91 9811896536 Website:   https://www.viveknasa.com Email:   contact@viveknasa.com Facebook Profile:  Visit Google Maps:  Visit Youtube Channel:  Visit  
Read more

Waiver of Cooling-Off Period for Mutual Consent Divorce in India

By Vivek Nasa
  Waiver of Cooling-Off Period for  Mutual Consent Divorce in India   By Vivek Nasa Associates The concept of  mutual consent divorce  was introduced in India to provide an amicable and less adversarial way for couples to end their marriage when they find it irreparable. Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , and similar provisions in other personal laws, couples can file for divorce by mutual consent  if they have been living separately for at least one year and agree that the marriage cannot be sustained. However, one of the most debated aspects of this provision is the mandatory “cooling-off period” of six months between the first and second motions for divorce . This raises the question: Can the cooling-off period for mutual consent divorce in India be waived off? Understanding the Cooling-Off Period The cooling-off period is a statutory requirement designed to give couples time to reconsider their decision to divorce . It acts as a safegua...
Read more

Complaint under section 420 IPC not barred even if prior complaint under section 138 NI Act is pending -Supreme Court

By Vivek Nasa
It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat that, A subsequent complaint under section 420 IPC is admissible & not barred even if prior complaint under section 138 NI Act is pending or appeal thereto in pending adjudication. Supreme Court of India Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat ; Anr on 23 April, 2012 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Jagdish Singh Khehar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 of 2012 Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel …Appellant Versus State of Gujarat & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7807 of 2006, by which the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the presen...
Read more