As per the case facts, the appellant was convicted under Section 411 of the IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property, which was upheld by the High Court. The appeal was ... initially limited to the quantum of sentence but later considered the conviction itself. The question arose whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC could be sustained without establishing the appellant's dishonest intent and knowledge that the property was stolen. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant's acquittal. The Court found that the fundamental evidence to establish the appellant's mens rea (guilty mind) was not available. It was not proven that the appellant dishonestly received stolen property with the knowledge and belief that the goods were stolen. Therefore, the conviction was deemed erroneous.