BHAGWATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision No 167/83 is directed against the order, dated 15-3-83 passed by Shri S. B Singh, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Luckuow in CRIMINAL Appeal No. 215/8. The revisionist was prosecuted under Sections 579, 511, I. P. C He was convicted under Sections 379, 511, I. P. C. and intended to pay a fine of Rs 250/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 16-12-1981, at about 9. 10p. m. , P. W. Shri Asim Kumar Banerjee, Junior Engineer, U. P. State Electricity Board, received a complaint about power failure in Road. U is said that on receiving the said information, he along with Sua Amar isam Mishra leached Thimyya Road and there they found some one stauduijj on the platform of the transformer pole. Shi Baucrjoe, then called the person to come down but the said person jumped down and tried to run avid. Shri Banerjee, then raised an alarm and ii is said that two constables why were on patrol duty, reached. He reached the place of the occurrence immediately and he found the revisionist standing on the platform of the transformer pole. On checking it was found that one side phase of the transformer has be in closed. The revisionist, seeing the witnesses jumped down and tried to run a the basis of the above-mentioned fact, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the revisionist is only making preparation for cutting of the electric- wire and he has not made attempt to cut the electric-wire. In fact, Juror the perusal of the evidence, it appears that he failed to cut electric as the witness reached there and they challenged him. No valid explanation comes from the side of the revisionist as to why he was standing on the platform of the transformer. The accused in his statement stated that he was arrested of the persons on the suspicion and on the ground that there was an electricity failure and the revisionist was suspected to be thief of electric wire Li support of his contention, the applicant's counsel cited a case of Province of Bihar v. Bhagwati Prasad, reported in 194v. Cr. L. J. at page t82. In the said case, the accused was the Incharge of the godown and he was charged for an attempt to misappropriate the grain-bags. In this case, he scattered certain numbers 01 the bags is one of the rooms after removing the same from the godown. It was not disputed that he had neither manipulated the register and actually tried to remove the said bags instead of scattering another room. In my opinion, the is of the said case are quite different with the present case, therefore, the principle enumerated in the said case, can not be relied upon in this case. Another case of Allahabad High Court, namely, Thakur Ghulab Singh v. Emperor, reported in 1976 Crl. J. at page 431, has also been cited by the applicant's counsel but the facts of the said case are also quite different with the fact of the present case. In the said case, the; Police Officer took photographs of order-trial but there is no evidence to show that the intention of the Police Officer was to fabricate false evidence In one of the case Makita Singh and Ors. v. Slate of Punjab, reported in AIR 1970 SC 71. , the oriel Supreme Court explained the difference between preparation and attempt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the difference observed that: "if a man buys a box of matches, he cannot be convicted of attempting croup, however, clearly it may be proved that he intended to set fire to a hay stack at the time of the purchase. Nor can, he be convict ed of this off-color if he approaches to stack with the matches in his pocks, but if he bends down near the stack and lights a match which he extinguishes of perceiving that he U being watched, he may be guilty of an attempt to turn it. " 8. Keeping in mind of the above-mentioned proposition of law, in my opinion the act of the revisionist comes within the ambit of attempt and he hat crossed the ambit of preparation, in order to complete his ac1: of wire cutting, the revisionist climbed up on the picric pole and reached on the platform of the transformer. He also closed one of the phase of the transformer in order to cut the electric wire but, thereafter, h; could not act Mulct the wire as the witnesses arrived there a the spot and he was then jumped down and tried to run away The revisionist, thereafter arrested by the witnesses and from his possession a pause, a see driver and a hanger were recovered 9. ID view of the facts stated above, in my opinion, the revisionist is guilty of an attempt to cut electric wire. 10. The revision has, therefore, no force and is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .