KARNAL SINGH UTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us by special leave was charged as follows by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay:

(2.) The prosecution evidence in the case was:One Shankar Dhondiba sutar a member of the Ex-Servicemen Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Bombay, had purchased the truck No. MRS 7372 after taking a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Society out of which he had paid up Rupees 43,000/- He had entrusted Balwantsingh Uttamsingh, the brother of the appellant, with the truck. He had contract with Balwantsingh Uttamsingh under which he used to get a net income of Rs. 2000/- to Rupees 2200/- p.m. from Balwantsingh Uttamsingh who was running the truck and seemed to be incurring all necessary expenses over it. This amount was paid regularly upto Dec., 1967, Thereafter, Balwantsingh Uttamsingh, the driver, avoided meeting the purchaser of the truck and was said to be absconding. On 4-3-1968, the truck met with an accident and Balwantsingh Uttamsingh is said to have sent information of it to S. D. Sutar. On 9-3-1963, according to Sutar, Balwantsingh himself went to Sutar. And, when the owner asked him to take him to the truck, it is alleged that he did not comply with this request. As Shankar Dhondiba Sutar had not paid up the whole amount due for the truck which he had borrowed from the Society, the owner of the truck, as entered in the Insurance papers, was the Society itself. S. D. Sutar stated that he found the truck at Thana Katha where he also found the appellant before us, Karnal Singh Uttamsingh, who had been, apparently, driving the truck. The First Information Report was lodged on 20-4-1968 at 12.30 p.m. by S. D. Sutar. It is against Balwantsingh Uttamsingh and makes no allegations against the present appellant. It is said that Balwant Singh Uttamsingh had met S. D. Sutar again on 12-3-1968 and told him that he would turn up again. Vazir Singh Gaya Singh, P. W. 2, the Secretary of the Bombay Ex.-Servicemen Transport co. deposed that S. D. Sutar was a shareholder in the Company and proved the terms of his contract with Balwantsingh. He also made no complaint whatsoever against the present appellant. All that he said was that the truck was seen near Kashali Bridge and the present accused was it driver. Sub-Inspector Ramesh Damodar, P. W. 3, stated that, on 13-5-1968, Vazir Singh, PW 2, and a police constable brought the truck to Pydhonie Police Station and that it was being driven by the present appellant at that time. This is all the evidence against the appellant.

(3.) The only question that the appellant was asked by the learned Magistrate under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code and the appellant's reply are: