IN RE: CHERUKURI RAMI REDDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the first of three accused in C.C. No. 965 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Sub -Magistrate of Kovur. All the accused were charged with offences under Sections 457 and 380 or Section 411 of the Penal Code. The 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted. The first accused was convicted by the Stationary Sub -Magistrate of an offence under Section 411 only and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Kavali.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that P.W. 1 - -a well -to -do ryot of Kovur on the morning of the 25th June, 1942, found that seven bulls which he had tied up in a shed the previous night were missing. News reached him on the 26th that the bulls had been seen in the possession of the accused and on the 27th of June, the bulls and the accused were detained at the village some thirty or forty miles from Kovur. The 2nd and 3rd accused are the servants of the first accused. The defence of the first accused was that he had purchased the bulls from P.W. 1, and he examined witnesses who supported his defence.

(3.) THE Stationary Sub -Magistrate, although he rejected the evidence for the defence, convicted the 1st accused only of an offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code because, rather surprisingly, he did not believe that the bulls had been stolen from the shed. The reasons for his belief, the validity of which may well be doubted, need not be examined for the purposes of this revision petition The bub -Divisional Magistrate in his judgment confined himself substantially to a consideration of the evidence for the defence which, he was of opinion had rightly been rejected by the Stationary Sub -Magistrate. He does not seem however to have noticed that the Sub -Magistrate had found that the bulls had' not been stolen from the shed, or if he did notice it, he does not seem to have thought that it had any bearing on the propriety of the conviction under Section 411 of the Penal Code. He said merely after he had given his reasons for rejecting the case for the defence. There is nothing improbable in the prosecution story. There is nothing wrong in the conviction under Section 411, Indian Penal Code." The Sub -Divisional Magistrate also does not seem to have thought that his finding that the bulls had not been stolen from the shed gave rise to any difficulties with regard to the charge under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. He said : " It cannot be said that the bulls were stolen from the shed. It is quite possible that the bulls might have strayed away having been kept loose in the fields"; and he gives some effect to this finding when he finally concludes that accused is guilty under Section 411, Indian Penal Code of dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen; or of dishonestly retaining it, having received it honestly What he has really found, as appears from the judgment read as a whole, although he does not say so very clearly, is that the first accused must be presumed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code because he has not accounted for his possession of seven bulls which had been criminally misappropriated.