HORILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition in revision against an order acquitting Parmu the opposite party from the charge under Section 411, Penal Code. I have arrived at the conclusion that the petition must be allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken an entirely erroneous view of the law.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that on the night between 18 and 19-9-1949, a theft by house-breaking took place in the house of one Hori Lal in the village of Purwa Pita Ram. He made a report at the police station at 9 a.m. on the following morning. The total value of the articles alleged to have been stolen was stated to be Rs. 1,400/-. He named certain persons in the report against whom he had suspicion. Parmu, opposite party, was not mentioned in it. At the trial of the case evidence was led to prove that on 22-9-1949, in the course of the investigation, Parmu, opposite party, took the Station Officer, Ibne Ali, to his field and there he dug out a silver Chhail Churi which was one of the articles stolen from the house of Hori Lal, complainant. On the basis of this evidence the learned trying Magistrate convicted Parmu and sentenced him to four months' rigorous imprisonment. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the recovery of the Chhail Churi did not fasten the guilt upon Parmu and so he acquitted Parmu of the charge under Section 411, Penal Code but directed that the Chhail Churi shall be delivered to Hori Lal.

(3.) It may be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no doubt in his mind about the fact that the accused handed over the Chhail Churi after digging it out from his 'mukka' field. He observes :