K M MUSTHAFA Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is said to be the sole accused in a prosecution initiated under Section 379 I.P.C. The defacto complainant was allegedly travelling in a bus. The bag belonging to him was allegedly thieved by some unknown person in the course of the journey. The defacto complainant filed a complaint three days after the alleged theft. Crime was registered. Investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, the stolen article was found to be available in the possession of a doctor, who handed it over to the police. The doctor explained that it is the petitioner who handed over the stolen article to the doctor. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to the quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the ground?

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioner was present in the bus from which the article was removed, offence of theft cannot be validly alleged against him. He further points out that recovery was not from his personal possession and in these circumstances, the statement of the doctor, who allegedly handed over the alleged stolen article to the police, cannot also be reckoned as any relevant and valid contumacious circumstances against him to infer culpability.