BHAGWAN SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal of Bhagwan Singh Rana is directed against the appellate judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated February 5, 1971, upholding the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated November 4, 1970, convicting him of an offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act but reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The appellant was working as Sub-Post Master in Sohna Adda Post Office, in the leave vacancy of Raghu Ram (P. W. 6) on March 21, 1967. Navtej Singh (P. W. 5), who was a student of the Junior Technical School Gurgaon, delivered a parcel containing a lady's wrist watch (Ex. P. 1) addressed to R. L. Bhardwaj (P. W.3). to the appellant, on March 21, 1967, at the Sub-Post Office. It was an unregistered parcel. The watch did not reach the addressee. R. L. Bhardwaj (P. W. 3) went to Gurgaon in May, 1967, and contacted Navtej Singh (P. W. 5) for obtaining the watch from him. Navtej Singh informed him that he had already sent the watch by post on March 21, 1967. Navtej Singh and R. L. Bhardwaj then went to Sohna Adda Sub-Post Office and made inquiries about the parcel. Raghu Ram (P. W. 6) who had, in the mean time, resumed his duties as Sub Postmaster, told them that he was on leave on March 21, 1967, and that it was appellant Bhagwan Singh Rana who was working for him on that day. He also informed them that he had seen a tin plate lying in the post office. Navtej Singh (P. W. 5) saw that tin plate and identified it to be the same in which he had packed the watch. R. L. Bhardwaj (P. W. 3) thereupon filed a complaint with the postal authorities, and the inquiry was entrusted to A. P. Bhatnagar (P. W. 1), Inspector of Post Offices. It is alleged that during the course of inquiry the appellant recorded a statement in his own handwriting on May 25, 1967, in the Post Office at Parliament Street,. New Delhi, where he was working on that date making some admissions. That statement is on the record as Ex. PB. It is alleged further that the appellant undertook to produce the watch the next day and that he appeared before Inspector A. P. Bhatnagar (P. W. 1) on May 26, 1967, in his office at Gurgaon, and produced watch (Ex. P. 1) and also wrote a further statement Ex. PC. The matter was however not reported to the police until September 15, 1969. It was then that the police registered a case against the appellant and charge-sheeted him for the commission of an offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act. The case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. As has been stated, his conviction has been upheld by the High Court but the sentence has been reduced to one year.

(3.) It has been argued by Mr. Ramamurthi on behalf of the appellant that Exs. PB and PC which were produced in the trial Court as an extra judicial confessions of the appellant, had not been made voluntarily, and should not have formed the basis of the appellant's conviction as they were not true, were not corroborated, and were retracted by the appellant.