PULPIL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Pulpil Singh against an order of the learned Sessions judge of Basti by which he confirmed an order of the learned Magistrate of first class convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 411, I. P. C. to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to a further three months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) CERTAIN bales of cloth were booked from Kanpur to Ghazipur city. The wagon containing those bales left Kanpur on 10-6-1951, The train reached Maghar Station on 11-6-1951 and on the verification by the railway authorities it was found that 32 bales were intact and one bale had been, tampered with from which certain articles were removed. The seal of the wagon was found damaged. When the wagon reached Lucknow five more bales were found missing. That was not the end of the matter. When the wagon reached Gorakhpur four more bales were found missing, report was made with the police and investigation was taken up. During the course of the investigation certain articles were recovered from Lallan Singh and certain other articles together with the gunny forming part of the outer covering of one of the bales were recovered from Pulpil Singh, applicant. Both these persons are residents of village katasai within police circle Paikaulia. Certain more articles were recovered from one Hidayat ullah alias Mangrey Darzi of Gour, and still certain other articles were recovered from one gajadhar Ahir of village Masjidya within police circle Kotwali. All these articles were the contents of one bale that had been stolen from the wagon. The gunny bag that was recovered from Pulpil Singh bore the railway mark that had been assigned to it at the time when the consignment had been booked. Lallan Singh died on 27-1-1952, so the proceedings against him abated. The other three persons were jointly tried and charged under section 411, I. P. C. The learned Magistrate acquitted Hidayat Ullah alias Mangrey and Gajadhar and convicted the applicant under Section 411 and sentenced him in the manner stated above. The defence of the applicant was that the cloth and the gunny bag that bad been recovered from his possession came into his possession after he had purchased them from a hawker of cloth who hailed from Punjab. His contention was that he was not the receiver of any stolen property and that he was in bona fide possession of the same. The learned Magistrate repelled his plea on the ground that the prosecution evidence was clear, cogent and consistent and that the presumption arising under Section 114, Evidence Act must be drawn against the applicant, more so because he did not produce the Punjabi hawker. "against his conviction and sentence, the applicant preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge in a very brief judgment upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. In revision before this Court three points have been urged.

(3.) FIRSTLY: that a joint trial of the applicant with Hidayat Ullah and Gajadhar was against the provisions of Section 239 (f), Criminal P. C. and was therefore illegal. Secondly: that no presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act could be drawn against the applicant; and the applicant's contention that he was in bona fide possession of all the articles should have been accepted. Thirdly: that in any event the sentence awarded is severe.