KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Karunakaran and Samikutty have been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode under S. 381 and 380 I. P. C. respectively and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. Criminal Appeal no, 360 of 1959 is by the 1st accused and Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1960 is by samikutty the 2nd accused.

(2.) THE three Sindhi brothers, Fageemal Lakshmichand Pw. 1, Bihari Lal Pw. 2 and Sreechand Fageemal Pw. 3 were conducting a private banking business as partners, in the name of "sreechand and Co" in Silk Street , Calicut. Pws. 1 and 3 are the managing partners doing the banking business in two adjacent rooms of the same building. Pw. 3 engaged the 1st accused as a clerk cum accountant. THE two brothers used to go out daily for an evening stroll at about 6 P. M. leaving the 1st accused in charge of both the offices and were in the habit of returning only by about 8 P. M. to close down their offices at 9 P. M. On 20-3-1959 as usual Pws. 1 and 2 after locking the safe and table and taking the keys with them, left their offices for an evening walk, leaving the 1st accused in charge of the offices. THEy returned a bit early on that day at about 7. 15 P. M. when they found their offices closed and lights put out. Pw. 2 entered through the back door, put on the lights and found the 1st accused tied to a chair with his mouth closed with a cloth. Pw. 2 opened the door and admitted Pw. 1 who removed the 1st accused's gag when he told them that three or four robbers entered the office and at the point of the dagger tied him up, put out the lights and tampered with the safe, Godrej table and box and escaped shortly after. Telephonic information given to the Town Police brought Pw. 8 to the scene at about 8. 30 P. M. when Pw. 1 reported that currency notes to the value of Rs. 3,510/- were missing from the safe and boxes kept in their offices. Police detected the offence and arrested the 1st accused on whose information the 2nd accused was "discovered". THE 2nd accused was also arrested and MOs. 1 to 5 were recovered under S. 27 of the evidence Act as a result of the 2nd accused's confession Ext. P-3, recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police and attested by two witnesses. THE investigation was completed and the accused were charge-sheeted under S. 381 and 380 respectively.

(3.) TWO points alone were strongly urged before me by the learned Advocate for the 1st accused. They are (i) the serious prejudice to the 1st accused caused by the improper questioning of the accused under S. 342, criminal Procedure Code by the trial judge and (ii) the illegality in the recovery of M. Os. 1 to 5 as a result of the information given by the accused to the police.