IN RE: SRINIVASA NAICKER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 4, Treasure Trove Act (6 of 1878) enacts (to quote the relevant portion):

(2.) It is alleged that P. Ws. 1 and 2 and accused 3 found a treasure but failed to make a report as provided by this section. The point to decide is whether accused 1 and 2 (the only appellants) were guilty of abetment of the offence of failure to report.

(3.) Both the Courts below act upon Ex. A the first information given by P. Ws. 1 and 2. On the facts as stated in that information, can a conviction be sustained Neither accused 1 nor 2 was present at tab finding of the treasure and until the three finders had finally decided not to report, neither of the two accused had any sort of connexion with the matter. It is not even suggested in the statement that any of three finders, when finally and definitely deciding not to report, had met accused 1 or 2 or had any conversation with either of them. Whatever other offence they may have committed on the finding that they shared the treasure illegally, they are clearly not guilty of abetment of failure to report. The conviction is set aside and the fines, if already paid, will be refunded.