GHURAHOO SHAH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 411, I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of two years, R. 1. for having been in possession of a stolen Scooter which was recovered from the applicant's possession. Both the courts of fact. However, Sri R. C. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant cited two decisions to contend that since in the instant case the Investigating Officer also happened to be the Recovering Officer, the recovery should be disbelieved and, therefore, the applicant should be acquitted. In Jwala Singh Vs. State, 1988 (25) ACC 345 a learned Single Judge had held that since the two public witnesses namely, Uma Shanker Singh and Ram Bahoran Singh had not supported the recovery, therefore, the Sub-Inspector who made the recoveries and simultaneously investigated the case would not be relied upon. The said case, therefore, is distinguishable.

(2.) In Pir Bux Vs. State, 1980 (17) ACC 187 a learned Single Judge while dealing with a case of recovery of illicit arms held that there was no sanction by the District Magistrate and that there was no evidence of personal search of the accused in that case and thus disbelieved the recovery. The acquittal was not recorded only on the ground that the Recovering Officer was the Investigating Officer. This case, therefore, also is distinguishable.

(3.) In the instant case loss of Scooter bearing Registration No. DBO-7361 belonging to Arvind Kumar Tewari is sufficiently proved. The loss occurred on 28.7.1987 near the Excise Office whereas the said Scooter was recovered from the applicant's possession on 2.8.1987 i.e. within five days. It is true that P.W. 4, Ram Pragat who was Recovering Officer also investigated the case but his evidence has been fully corroborated by P.W. 3, D.S. Yadav who was a constable accompanying the Inspector. A recovery memo was prepared which mentioned the details of the Engine, chassis and registration number of the Scooter. This tallied with the description of the Scooter given by Arvind Kumar Tewari. Consequently, in the instant case the recovery of the stolen Scooter within five days is enough proof. of the genuineness of the recovery., During cross-examination nothing has been brought out against either of the two witnesses to discredit their evidentiary value.