SHER BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Sher Bahadur, has been convicted, for offences under S. 411 I.P.C., and S. 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), and has been sentenced to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00, for each of those offences, by the Magistrate, I Class, Jamshedpur. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, has confirmed the conviction, as well as the sentences, and a revision application, filed by the appellant, in the High Court of Patna, has been summarily dismissed. Hence this appeal, by special leave.

(3.) In the view that we take, that the prosecution cannot be considered to have established that the appellant had possession of, or control over the premises from which articles have been seized, so as to sustain the conviction, for the offences, mentioned above, it becomes unnecessary to consider, very elaborately, the various items of other evidence. It is enough to note that, on a search made on Aug. 4, 1955, of a godown or premises known as Makdumpur Home Industries, Police Station Jugsalai, several articles of railway sleepers, iron channels, iron fiats and iron rods etc. were seized by the police. There is no controversy that the key of the godown was delivered to the police officers, by one Md. Siddique. According to the prosecution, the said Md. Siddique, and the appellant, were conducting a business in the godown, in question, and the articles seized belonged to Tisco and Railway Establishments and, as such, were stolen goods. Though the case was registered, as against a large number of persons, ultimately, eight accused, including the appellant, were sent up for trial. There was a common charge against all the accused, under sections 120 B read with S. 411 I.P.C., and 414 I.P.C., and also under S. 3 of the Ordinance; there was a separate charge against the appellant, under S. 411 I.P.C., and S. 3 of the Ordinance. The appellant disowned all connection with either Md. Siddique or with the premises, from where the articles were seized.