STATE OF U P Vs. MAIKU BALDEO CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of these three appeals together because their facts are identical and the points raised is them are the same. Criminal Appeal No. 311 OT 1962 has been filed against Maiku. Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1962 has been filed against Shakoor and Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1962 has been filed against Mangrey. The three respondents were prosecuted and tried separately before the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sitapur on a charge under Section 5 Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, The charge against Maiku respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1962 was that on 25th June, 1959 at about 2 P.M., he was found in possession of two Lachhis (weighing 30 seers) of Railway Telegraph Wire while he was going on a rickshaw in Sitapur. Against Shakoor it was alleged that he had with him three bundles of Telegraph Wire when he was arrested near Sah Maholi, police station Kotwali, district Sitapur, at about 9.20 A.M. on 12th May, 1959. Mangrey respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 313 oF 1962 was accused of possessing one Coil of Railway Telegraph Wire (weighing 28 seers) at about 3.15 P.M. on 25th June, 1959.

(2.) By separate judgments, but on the same reasoning, the learned Magistrate acquitted the three respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgments passed by the learned Magistrate in all the three cases, the State has filed these appeals.

(3.) The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents because according to him in all the three cases there was no proper complaint as required by Section 7 of the Tele-graph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act; hence the prosecution was misconceived and bad in law and the respondents could not be tried and convicted for committing the offence under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. He did not enter into the merits of the case against any of the three respondents.