SYED IBRAHIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the judgment dt. 12th May 1970 of the Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 68/70 dismissing the appeal of the accused,

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 4-11-1969 the accused was caught red-handed while carrying four copper wire bundles in a gunny bag. It is stated that P. C. 566 apprehended the accused with the help of the Anantha Reddy (P. W. 4.) Thereafter the accused was prosecuted on the basis of a police report under Sections 5 and 7 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act), The First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad on 20-3-1970 in C. Cs. 102 to 105 of 1969 by a common order convicted the accused of the offences under Section 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the accused pre. ferred an appeal to the Chief City Magistrate Hyderabad who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

(3.) In this revision which is preferred against the order of the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad, Mr. Padmanabha Reddy the learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the judgments of both the courts below are incorrect because there is no evidence whatsoever produced on behalf of the prosecution to show that the person who has filed the complaint, was the authorised officer of the Central Government and as such the court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act I see some force in this contention. Section 5 of the Act provides penalty for unlawful possession of telegraph wires and Section 7 of the Act provides the procedure to be followed when a person is prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 5 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides.