RAJ NARAIN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision raises a question of some importance to the police and the magistracy in dealing with suspicious characters moving about crowded places like railway platforms, bus -stands, cinema booking -offices, etc. with the intention of committing theft: Can such a person be proceeded against under Clause (a) of Section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure?

(2.) THE facts as found by the Courts below are that the applicant was seen on a railway platform moving about the passengers and touching their pockets; he was kept under continuous observation by a police constable and also by two other persons summoned by the latter for this purpose; when arrested he was found to be in possession of a razor blade, an instrument which can facilitate the commission of the offence of picking pockets. Both the Courts below agreed in binding him over under Clause (a) of Section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure. His Learned Counsel contends that the facts as found by them do not amount to "taking precautions to conceal his presence", and he goes on to argue that since no attempt has been made by them to apply Clause (b) the order demanding security cannot stand.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal from the Magistrate's order has based his judgment on the decision of the late Mr. Justice Ghulam Hasan in Ram Lal v. Emperor, 1942 A.W.R. (C.C.) 34 and has construed it as laying down that when the Defendant was found mixing with the crowd at a railway station and was attempting to feel their pockets he should be deemed to be concealing his presence. I have gone through his Lordship's judgment but do not find it laying down any such proposition. There was an additional factor of vital importance against Ram Lal , namely, that he appeared originally at 9 a.m. and suddenly disappeared for two hours and reappeared at 11 a.m., and it was this fact that left no room for doubt in his Lordship's mind that he was trying to conceal his presence.