SATYAPAL THAPER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Satyapal Thapar has been convicted of an offence Under section 170, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default to two months' further rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the learned Sessions Judge was unsuccessful.

(2.) It appears that on or about 23-11-1947,, some one posing as an Inspector of the Chemical Directorate, New Delhi, visited Shikohabad and inspected the firms known as Bast Indian Soap Factory, Shikohabad Soap and Chemical 1951 A11./61 & 62 Works, Jai Bharat Soap Factory and C. P. Soap Factory. Thereafter he also visited Firozabad in the Agra district and there also inspected a few soap factories. At both these places the visitor gave out that he was an Inspector of the Chemical Directorate, New Delhi. Sometime later Mr. U. R. Bhatt, the Junior Field Officer, visited Shikohabad. He was then informed that one Mr. "Paul" had already inspected the soap factories at Shikohabad sometime back. Mr. Bhatt was surprised to hear this and he reported the matter to his superior officers. Subsequently as a result of investigation by the C. I.D. Inspector, Mr. B. N. Shukla, the applicant was arrested on 26-1-1948, and an identification parade was held on 28-1-1948 in the office of Mr. J. B. Pillai, P. W. 1, who is the head of the Statistical Branch of the D. G. I., New Delhi, in which the applicant is employed as a clerk. At the identification parade the applicant was mixed with his twin brother Dharam Pal, a clerk working in another section of the Directorate. There were also seven other persons, outsiders, who were mixed with him. Dhan Prakash seems to have been taken out of the parade by Mr. Pillai. As a result of those proceedings out of five witnesses, four identified the applicant and made no mistake. The fifth witness named Makkhan Lal stated that he could not identify anyone as he saw the person at Shikohabad only for three or four minutes, when he was taking his meals and later he left in a tonga immediately. In due course the applicant was sent up by the police for prosecution Under section 170, Penal Code. At the trial held before a learned Magistrate, first class, the applicant put up his defence to this effect. He stated that he was falsely implicated by Mr. Bhatt, Junior Field Officer, D. G. I. on account of enmity. He further stated that the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, as they were under the influence of Mr. Bhatt. He denied that he had visited Shikohabad and inspected any of the factories as alleged by the prosecution. In support of his plea, he had examined one witness Mr. K. N. Johary, stenographer of the Industries Department, Government of India, who simply tried to show that on one occasion Mr. Bhatt and the applicant Satyapal had an exchange of hot words. [Here his Lordship considered the evidence and proceeded.]

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended, in the first place, that the trial of the applicant is vitiated in law, inasmuch as he has been convicted of having personated in four different factories; in other words, the contention of the learned counsel is that the trial of the applicant has been in respect of at least four distinct offences committed at four different places, and this, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the provisions of the Criminal P. C. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the charge as framed by the learned Magistrate on 24-6-1948, and has contended that the applicant has been seriously prejudiced because the charge has been framed in very vague terms, as it refers to soap factories of two persons i. e. "the soap factories of Dharam Pal and Lokman Singh and others'' I have considered this contention of the learned counsel carefully. In this connection reference may be made to the provisions of Section 170, Penal Code. 'They are :