S MOSES NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under S. 482, Cri. P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 2168 of 1978 on the file of the J. S. C. M. Nanguneri.

(2.) THE petitioner was a pawn broker carrying on business at No. 58 Railway Station Road, Nazarath, Tiruchendur. A charge-sheet under Section 414, I. P. C. was filed against him in C. C. No. 2168 of 1978 on the file of the J. S. C. M. Nanguneri on the allegation that in the last week of August 1977, on the pledge of stolen two small rings and one 'nali' (another ring) in all weighing about 8-1/2 grams of gold valued at Rs. 500/- one Velu the petitioner paid him. Rs. 165/ -. In obedience to the summons, the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate pleaded not guilty to the offence under Section 414 I. P. C. and received documents under Section 173 (5) Cr. P. C. In the charge-sheet, the respondent cited one Seethapiratti, the alleged owner of the rings in question, now (one ?) Chellasami Nadar and one A. P. Murugan, the two mahazar witnesses for the alleged recovery of the rings from the petitioner and the Investigating Officer as witnesses. The statements of the first two witnesses were furnished to the petitioner.

(3.) ON the documents furnished to the petitioner learned counsel argued that S. 414 I. P. C. requires that there should be evidence to show that the petitioner had assisted the said alleged thief Velu in the disposal of the property or is concealing the said property. The learned counsel contended that the section does not even cover a case where a person receives and even disposed the alleged stolen property and that the section is not intended to punish those whose acts constitute a distinct offence punishable as such under Section 411 to 415 I. P. C. The learned counsel further contended that the statements furnished to the petitioners do not reveal any acts of assistance in concealing or disposal, that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner knew had reason to believe that the alleged property was stolen property and that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had assisted in concealing or disposing of the said jewels. The learned counsel argued that the proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Court below have to be quashed.