STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. LINGAYYA KARIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 17th Court of Presidency Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay has convicted the present accused under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and it appears that the judgment of conviction and consequently of the sentence is not at all tenable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) To prove the case the prosecution purported to examine one witness P.W. 1, Maruti K. Pathak, who stated that on December 3, 1971 at about 11.30 p.m. He had found the accused behind Housing Board Building No. 12 at Kalachowki having copper wire bundle in his right hand. He stated that as soon as the accused saw him he retraced his steps and thereupon he detained him as he suspected the property to be stolen. He took charge of the property and drew a proper panchanama and took the accused and the property to the Police Station where an offence under section 124 Bombay Police Act was registered. In the cross-examination of this witness suggestion was given to him that the accused gave proper address and further had given him the explanation why he was carrying the copper wire (Exhibit A) which he admits to be that which remains when the plastic cover of the electric wire is burnt. It is put to him that accused had told him that the brother of the accused had taken a contract in a Baithi Chawl at Ambewadi and that accused was assisting his brother in rewiring. This is all the evidence led by the prosecution.

(3.) The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Kamble, admitting candidately conceded that along with the charge sheet filed in the Court, the panchanama drawn by this witness was filed but surprisingly the prosecution had not proved the said panchanama. No panch witness was also examined. Though it is the case of P.W. 1 Maruti Krishna Pathak, that it was he who had made the panchanama the same has not been brought on record.