SATNARAIN SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Patna High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for which a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment was imposed.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution a Sen-Raleigh cycle was stolen from the possession of Sheo Charan Lal. He reported the matter to the Police on March 25, 1965. It appears that on May 11, 1965 the Station House Officer, Incharge Giridih Police Station A. D. N. Sinha learnt while he was moving about in the town on the Maharram day that a thief was running away with a cycle. The alleged thief was apprehended and the cycle in his possession was taken into custody. The name of that person was Mohd. Siddique. He made a statement to the police officer which led him to search the premises of the appellant. As a result of the search seven cycles including the Sen-Raleigh cycle belonging to Sheo Charan Lal which was stolen on March 24, 1965 and three other cycles were recovered from the house of the appellant. Mohd Siddque and the appellant were tried, the former under S. 379 and the latter under S. 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Siddque was convicted and sentenced but he did not file any appeal.

(3.) It was not disputed before the High Court that the Sen-Raleigh cycle was recovered along with nine other cycles as a result of the search of the house of the appellant by A. D. N. Sinha the S. H. O., on May 11, 1965. It was also proved that that cycle was stolen. The explanation given by the appellant was that three out of the 10 cycles belonged to the members of his family and the other seven had been pledged with him as he carried on the business of a pawnbroker. The Sen-Raleigh cycle had been pledged by Siddique with him and that is how the said cycle was recovered from his possession. P.W. 1 Jayantilal and P.W. 2 Shyam Narain Singh deposed that the appellant as well as his brothers and other members of his family lived in the same house. It was further stated by them that the appellant and his brothers worked as contractors and they also took things on pawn and advanced money. According to Shyam Narain Singh he had seen ornaments and utensils being taken on pledge by the appellant and members of his family although he had not seen him taking any cycle on pledge. The appellant also produced a document Exh. DA which was scribed by one Beldev Pandit and had been attested by some witnesses. In this document it was stated that Rs. 80/- had been received by Siddique by way of advance from the appellant and that the cycle in question had been pledged with the latter. Neither the scribe nor Mahabir Sao or Nanden who were the attesting witnesses gave evidence. D. W. I. Ramjit Sao a neighbour deposed that the document Exh. A had been scribed in his presence and that Rs. 80/- had been paid to Siddique. Siddique had pawned the cycle by way of security for the advance. The courts below found that this document had been manufactured for the purpose of the case implying thereby that it was not genuine. The appellant does not appear to have produced any evidence about the pledging of the other cycles which were found in his possession nor did he point to any other article from the cycles which had been pledged with him in the course of his business when the search was made of his house by the S. H. O. A. D. N. Sinha.