VENKATAPPA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this application under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is that it is illegal to convict the accused both under Section 395 and under Section 412 I.P.C THE requirements of Article 134 (1) (c) were construed by the Supreme Court in Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh and it was held that leave under this clause is intended to meet extraordinary cases and further that the High Court's order granting leave should indicate what questions of outstanding difficulty or importance that require to be settled are involved. In this case, the only question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is whether an accused can be lawfully convicted both under Section 395 and under Section 412 I.P C. THEre is no statutory prohibition for such a conviction. On principle, if the criminal act is only a single act coming within the definition of two distinct offences, there should not be a conviction for both the offences but the conviction should be under one of them or in the alternative. It depends on the facts of each case whether the charges in respect of two distinct offences relate to a single act or to more than one act. In the present case, the act of dacoity in respect of which there has been a conviction under section 395 I. P. C. does not necessarily involve a transfer of possession of the property which is punishable under Sec. 412 I. P. C. Under the definition of "dacoity" in Sec. 391 I. P. C. not only the robber who takes the property but also those who join with him or aid him, commit the offence. In other words, there need not be an act of taking by every person charged under Sec. 395 I. P. C. THE evidence relating to the participation in the robbery in this case was distinct from that relating to the subsequent possession and it is quite likely that there was separate act of division of the spoils by which the possession of the stolen property was transfered.

(2.) HENCE it cannot be said, on the facts of this case, that simulatanecus conviction under Sec. 395 and 412 I. P. C. is necessarily illegal. Therefore, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.