GUIZAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. The appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the "IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for stealing an attache containing about Rs.55,000/ - from the possession of the complainant Vinod Kumar Aggarwal while he was travelling in a bus and had got down leaving this attache behind.

(3.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: 4.1 Complainant Vinod Kumar Aggrawal lodged report at the Police Post Bakaner on 25.12.1992 at about 7:30 p.m. that he had come to Manawar, Banaker, Singhana, Gandhwani, for recovery of due money from the merchants of the tea leaves supplied by him. In the morning, he had received money from Sugam Kirana and Gani Mohammad etc. in Bakaner and after recovery of money from Singhana, Gandhwani, had come to Manawar and also recovered the money from the parties in Manawar and took seat in the Manawar -Dhamnod Bakshi bus at 6:30 p.m. in the evening. He had kept one attache containing Rs.50 -60 thousand of all denominations inside by his side. On arrival at Bakaner, he went to meet Kailash Rathore for five minutes. When he returned back he did not find his attache. Someone had stolen about Rs.50 -60 thousand alongwith the attache. Two receipt books in the name of the shop Atul and Shyam, tea leaves sample, one diary and one blue colour muffler were also lying in the said attache. On the basis of this report of the complainant, an FIR bearing No.8/60 was registered with Police Post Banaker and thereafter the Main Crime No. 717/92 was registered with the Police Station Manawar and investigation was started. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the accused in the Court. 4.2 The Courts below on consideration of the material on record convicted the accused. Emphasis was laid on the recovery of the amount and the attache. Though a plea was taken that father of the accused had given the money, he could not establish his capacity to give the money to the accused. The sources indicated were found to be totally unacceptable.