UDAI BHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the revision application of the appellant against his conviction under Ss. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On October 13, 1956, at about 8 p.m. the complainant locked his shop and went out for a short while. On his return after about three-fourths of an hour he found his shop broken open and a box containing Rs. 2,000 and clothes and another box containing Rs. 200 stolen. He was told by prosecution witnesses Liladhar and Harnam Singh and two others that they had seen the appellant and Narain carrying away the boxes. On the following day at about 10 a.m. a report was lodged with the police and on October 15, 1956, the appellant was arrested by Sub-Inspector Virendrapal Singh. According to the prosecution, on being interrogated the appellant produced a box from a pond and handed over the same to the Sub- Inspector. He also produced a key from out of a bunch of keys before the Sub-Inspector and that key fitted the lock of the complainant which had been sent for. The Sub-Inspector took into possession both the key and the lock. The appellant and Narain were tried for offences against Ss. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant was convicted by the Magistrate under both the sections and was given consecutive sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under S. 457 and six months' rigorous imprisonment under S. 380, Indian Penal Code. Narain was, however, acquitted. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Sessions Judge and then took a revision to the High Court which was dismissed. He has brought the present appeal by Special Leave.

(3.) The High Court upheld the conviction holding that from the fact that the appellant was seen carrying the box from the direction of the complainant's shop and soon after produced the box and the key with which the lock could be opened were sufficient for the purposes of holding that he had committed offences with which he was charged. The High Court also held that it was unnecessary to go into the question of possession of the stolen articles because the fact that he knew that they were stolen from the shop of the appellant coupled with the fact that he was seen in the neighbourhood of the premises, from where the articles were stolen was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The High Court did not go into the question of the applicability or otherwise of S. 27 which had been held to be ultra vires by that Court and has since been held to be intra vires by this Court, the reason being that there was no evidence of a statement made by the appellant about the stolen property made to the police and therefore there was no discovery resulting therefrom.