S. 411 IPC | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweler Accused Of Possessing Stolen Gold Bars Since He Had No Knowledge That They Were Stolen Property

The Supreme Court today (February 25) acquitted a jeweler who was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for receiving stolen property in the high-profile ₹6.7 crore Vijaya Bank fraud case.

The Court observed that mere possession of the stolen property by the accused would not justify a conviction under Section 411 of IPC unless it is proven that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen.

Since the prosecution was not able to establish that the gold bars seized and recovered from the possession of the Appellant/accused were linked to the fraud, the Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the Appellant-Jeweler and ordered the Respondents to return the gold bar seized from his jewelry firm.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan heard the case which revolved around a financial fraud involving fake Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) amounting to ₹6.7 crores at Vijaya Bank, Nasik during 1997.

A fraudulent bank account was opened in the Bank under the fictitious name M/s. Globe International. A series of forged TTs amounting to ₹6.7 crore were deposited into this account, and the funds were systematically withdrawn through bogus demand drafts. The withdrawn money was allegedly used to purchase gold bars, which were later traced to various individuals, including the Appellant.

The CBI-led investigation resulted in several arrests including the Appellant-who owned a jewelry firm, where the gold bars were allegedly sold.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant, under Section 411 IPC for allegedly receiving stolen property, and ordered the return of the seized gold bars to him. However, the High Court upheld his conviction while reversing the order to return the gold, directing that the state confiscate it.

Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Overturning the High Court's ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra noted that the appellant's conviction could not be upheld due to the absence of conclusive evidence linking the seized gold bars to the fraudulently acquired assets.

Placing reliance on the case of Trimbak vs. State of M.P AIR 1954 SC 39, the Court explained that “In order to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove (i) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused; (ii) that some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and (iii) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.”

Noting that the prosecution failed to establish that he had knowledge or reason to believe that the gold was stolen, the Court observed that the identity of the gold was not established, therefore it could not be considered stolen property.

“When the pre-requisite evidence to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC is considered in the present case, even if it is proved that the appellant was handed over the demand drafts by Mr. Mukesh Shah and gold bars were purchased by the appellant from M/s. CN and M/s. V.B. Jewellers, still it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant either had knowledge or reason to believe that the demand drafts had been obtained through fraudulent process to make the gold bars as stolen property in the hands of the appellant or that the appellant was part of the conspiracy.”, the court observed.

“The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by positively completing the chain of circumstances against the appellant, which the prosecution has utterly failed in the present case.”, the court added.

“For all the aforestated reasons, we are inclined to allow the appeals preferred by the appellant/accused no. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni). Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 581-583 of 2012 preferred by the appellant-Nandkumar Babulal Soni are allowed. His conviction and sentence under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC is set aside. Since the seized gold bars were recovered from the appellant-Nandkumar Babulal Soni, he is entitled to the possession thereof. Therefore, we direct that the seized gold bars- 205 in number (Article 2) be handed over to the appellant- Nandkumar Babulal Soni.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: NANDKUMAR BABULAL SONI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mrs. Shivani Lal, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajive Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhirendar Kumar Verma, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mrs. Shivani Lal, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajive Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhirendar Kumar Verma, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mr. A. P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Naman Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR