SHIVKUMAR ATMARAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed on 5th November 1966 by Mr. N. R. Tatia City Magistrate 5 Court Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 834 of 1966 whereby while the accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be acquitted the accused No. 1 appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month for an offence punishable under sec. 379 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts of the case are quite simple. One Nanalal Govindji owned a Raleigh Cycle having a Frame No. R/34493/D. He had purchases it from Royal Cycle Importing Co. in Ahmedabad on 10th December 1961 for a sum of Rs. 273.00. On 4th July 1964 while going to his office at Sachivalaya in Ahmedabad he had left his cycle at the Cycle Stand. When he left the office in the evening and went to the Cycle Stand he found his cycle missing. He made enquiries in respect of his cycle at several places for about a fortnight and at last filed a complaint on 22nd July 1964 at the Navrangpura Police Station. On 22nd May 1966 while Mr. Salunke the P.S.I. of the Navrangpura Police Station was investigating the case he learnt that one cycle was sold to accused No. 3. That cycle was attached as the number of the frame of the cycle was the same as the one which the complainants cycle had. On his getting information about that cycle having been sold by accused Nos. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 70/he made further enquiries and arrested the accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well. The cycle was attached and the writing produced by accused No. 3 was also attached. After finishing the investigation of the case the charge sheet against all the accused was sent up to the Court of the City Magistrate Ahmedabad.

(3.) While accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged for an offence of theft in respect of that cycle punishable under sec. 379 Indian Penal Code accused No. 3 was charged for an offence punishable under sec. 411 Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. I and 2 denied to have committed any offence whatsoever. Both of them also denied to have sold any such cycle to accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 also denied to have passed any writing such as the one produced by accused No. 3 and marked B in the case. The accused No. 3 denied to have committed any offence and stated that he bad already produced a cycle before the police along with a writing marked B under which he had purchased the same by paying a sum of Rs. 70.00. He has filed a written statement which has been also kept on record. The accused has led no evidence in this case.