ABDUL KAREEM Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused was convicted under Sec.98 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and sentenced to suffer RI. for a period of three months, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Traffic Court), Bangalore. The accused appealed to the Court of Sessions at Bangalore. By his judgment dt.7-7-1971, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused.

(2.) The accused was running a shop in Bangalore, wherein he was framing photos. The charge against the accused was that there was reason to believe that MOs.1 to 31 valued at about Rs.10,000 were stolen properties and since he failed to give a satisfactory explanation for their possession, he had committed an offence under S.98 of the Act. That section reads:

(3.) The main evidence on which the prosecution case is founded consists of the testimony of PW.3 Sri Nanjunda Gowda, Sub Inspector of Police of Shooley Police Station. He has deposed that there were number of theft cases reported in the limits of Shooly Police Station and during the course of investigation in those cases he suspected the accused. Therefore, he wanted to search the house of the accused. He requested PW.1 Nagarajaiah, Sub Inspector of Police. Vyalikaval Police Station, in whose jurisdiction the accused was residing, to search the house of the accused. Accordingly, Nagarajaiah searched the house of the accused on 20-8-1968 when the accused was absent and seized MOs .1 to 5. which were produced by the mother-in-law of the accused from a box. Later, on 12-9-1968 he arrested the accused and on 13-9-68. it appears, the accused gave information on the basis of which MOs.6 to 31 were seized from the shop of the accused. The evidence of Nanjunde Gowda shows that he tried his best to secure the owners of the articles seized from the house and shop of the accused but he was unable to find them out. For nearlv 2 years no case was filed against the accused either under S.98 of the Act or under S.411 IPC. Apparently, Nanjunda Gowda must have tried during this long interval of time to find out the owners of these articles, but he failed in that attempt. After a long lapse of time since the articles in question were seized, a case was put up against the accused on the allegation stated above. The Courts below took into consideration that the accused was a previous convict and that he had no sufficient means to own these moveable properties worth about Rs.10,000 and therefore came to the conclusion that the accused must have been in possession of these properties, regarding which there was reason to believe that they were stolen properties.