IN RE: MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred by the accused in C.C. 912 of 1973 on the file of the Sub Magistrate, Uthangarai, challenging the propriety of the judgment passed by the learned District Magistrate (Judicial), Krishnagiri in C.A.5 of 1974 confirming the conviction passed against the petitioner by the trial Court for an offence under S.65 of the Madras City Police Act.

(2.) THE crux of the indictment of the prosecution case is that on 14th February 1973 at 22.15 hours (10 -15 p.m.) at Arumuga Achari Street, near the bus stand at Dharmapuri, the petitioner was found in possession of currency notes in various denominations to the value of Rs. 6,550 -00 (marked as M.Os. 2 to 72) and a coin of 50 paise (marked as M.O.73, all wrapped in a kerchief M.O.1 and that there were reasons to believe that the petitioner had either stolen that amount or had obtained it fraudulently and when questioned, he failed to give a satisfactory account for possession of the same. Five witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, of whom P.W.2, the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri, has spoken about his arresting the petitioner on suspicion at 10 -15 p.m. that day and to his seizing M.O. 1 to 73 under Ex.P. -1, the mahazar, attested by P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4, moneylenders at Salem, have stated that no cash had been stolen from their houses. P.W.5, the maternal uncle of the petitioner, has not supported the prosecution case, and therefore, he was treated as hostile. The petitioner came with a case that he was having Rs. 8,630/ - with him, that he brought the money as directed by his uncle P.W.5, for purchasing lands at Dharmapuri and that he was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 2. He examined the wife of P.W.5, as D.W.1, who has spoken to the fact that she sent Rs. 8,630/ - through the petitioner for handing over the same to her husband P.W.5 and the petitioner left the village accompanied by two other boys, viz., Subramaniam and Mohan. In order to prove his status in life, he further examined P.W.2, the Karnam of Karungalpatti village to which P.W.1 belongs, and this witness has spoken to the fact that P.W.5 has five or six tiled houses and some vacant sites. The trial Magistrate, holding that "obviously the amount should have been stolen from someone", has found the petitioner guilty under S.65 of the Madras City Police Act, convicted him thereunder and placed him in the custody of his uncle Govindaswami (P.W.5) on his executing a bond for Rs.500/ - to be responsible for the good behaviour of the petitioner for a period of six months. The lower Appellate Court has confirmed the finding of the trial Magistrate and the conviction. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE accused has not denied the case of the prosecution that he was arrested with large amount of cash at the time and place (as stated by the prosecution) by P.W.2. But, he would say that the sum recovered from him was Rs. 8,630/ - and not Rs. 6,550 -50. In furtherance of his statement, the accused would state that he is residing with his uncle P.W.5 and they had been to Dharmarpuri for purchasing certain landed properties, for which a sum of Rs. 8,000/ - was required for drawing up an agreement and so he was sent by P.W.5, to Salem to fetch the amount. He accordingly went to Salem and returned to Dharmapuri with the cash, accompanied by two of his friends, viz., one Mohan and Subramaniam. P.W.5 was not available at the bus stand. P.W. 2 arrested that accused and took him to Dharmapuri police station with his friends. P.W.5 came to the station by 11 p.m. and told P.W.2 that the money belonged to him. But, P.W.2 replied that P.W.5 could get that amount from the Court.