MANI MUTTAYYA PILLAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the judgement passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 6th September, 1967, whereby he confirmed the judgement dated 7th July, 1967, passed by the learned Magistrate, Bicholim, convicting the applicant under Section 379, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The applicant was also convicted of the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 , and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or, fin default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The applicant was found not guilty of the offence under Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and accordingly he was acquitted.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the applicant and two others committed theft of telephone copper wire from six poles at Sarvona between the night of 2nd of April, 1967, and 3rd of April, 1967, valued at Rs. 450/-. A charge was framed against the applicant and two other accused under Section 379 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and also under Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 . The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge. After examining as many as 15 witnesses in support of the-prosecution case and also after examining the applicant, the applicant was sentenced as mentioned above. The applicant felt aggrieved against the conviction and the sentence and moved the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. In the memo of appeal it was urged by the applicant that he pleaded guilty to the charge but as far as the sentence is concerned it is "severe". The learned Sessions Judge considered the question of sentence but in view of the fact that the crime of copper wire theft is rampant in this territory he declined to reduce the sentence. In this view of the matter he rejected the appeal with the observation that "stealing Telegraph wire" is a serious offence. The applicant then moved this Court in revision.

(3.) I have carefully considered the judgements of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate and I find that the applicant had been properly convicted under Section 379 of the I.P.C. As regards the conviction under Sections 5 and 6 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 , Section 7(1) thereof provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the Central Government or by an officer specially empowered in this behalf by that Government. In the judgement of the learned Magistrate there is a reference to this provision and it is stated that the power to file a complaint was delegated by Notification "published in the Gazette of India and that it was published is a fact - see footnote to the Section 7 in the AIR Manual, Vol. XV p. 592." It appears through oversight die learned Magistrate relied on this notification cited in the above Manual. The said notification is not on the record. The complainant did not state in this case that the complaint was made by or under the authority of the Central Government or he was specially empowered td file that complaint by that Government.