IPC Section 139
πΉ IPC Section 139 β Possession of Stolen Property (In a Case of Public Servant or Agent)
Text of Section 139
"When a person is found in possession of property which has been stolen, and the possession is either recent or unexplained, the burden of proving that he or she has acquired it lawfully shall lie upon such person, if such person is a public servant or an agent."
π Explanation
Section 139 deals with the presumption of possession of stolen property specifically for public servants or agents.
πΉ What does it mean?
If a public servant or an agent is found in possession of stolen property, the law presumes that the possession is unlawful unless the person proves otherwise.
The burden of proof shifts to the public servant or agent to show that they acquired the property lawfully.
This is a legal presumption aimed at public servants or agents to ensure that they do not misuse their position.
πΉ Key Terms
Public servant: Defined under Section 21 of the IPC β includes government officials, police officers, judges, etc.
Agent: Someone authorized to act on behalf of another person.
Property: Movable property that has been stolen.
Possession: Actual control or custody over the property.
Recent or unexplained possession: The person is found with the property soon after it was stolen or cannot explain how they acquired it.
πΉ Purpose of Section 139
To hold public servants and agents accountable, preventing them from benefiting from stolen property.
Since public servants have a special duty to uphold the law, the section creates a presumption against them if they possess stolen goods.
It makes it easier to prosecute such persons unless they can prove the legality of their possession.
πΉ Burden of Proof
Normally, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Under Section 139, once possession of stolen property is shown, the burden shifts to the public servant or agent to prove lawful acquisition.
This is a reverse burden of proof.
πΉ Important Points
This section applies only to public servants or agents β not to ordinary citizens.
The possession must be recent or unexplained; if the person has a reasonable explanation for possession, the presumption doesnβt apply.
The presumption is only about possession, not about the actual guilt of theft.
πΉ Example
If a police officer is found in possession of a stolen mobile phone shortly after a theft incident, and he cannot explain how he came to possess it, the law presumes that the officer got it unlawfully. It is then up to the officer to prove that he obtained it legally.
RELATED Blog
0 comments