SATYA NARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 4 (1) of the Bengal Criminal Law (industrial Areas) Amendment Act, 1941, whereunder the accused-petitioner has been convicted, reads (omitting portions not relevant for our present purpose) as hsreunder : -

(2.) ONE may suspect for no cause, or no good cause or for insufficient case. But as pointed out in Section 26, indian Panal Code, Chapter II thereof is virtually a law lexicon for all our penal statutes in the absence of contrary indication, a person is said to have reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing, but not otherwise. It is obvious that between "reason to believe to be stolen" and suspected to be stolen, there is inevitably a good deal of distance which cannot be covered by the mere ipse dixit of the prosecuting agency or the Court.

(3.) THE accused, as admitted by the prosecution was a dealer in scrap irpn and had the requisite licence to carry on such trade. He was found in the Truck which was being loaded with scrap iron at broad daylight at the crossing of busy road at about half kilometer away from his shop and on being challenged, he at once claimed to be owner. Accepting that the accused could not then produce any document in support of such purchase, it is not the case of the prosecution that dealing in the commodities in question was regulated oy any law and could not be freely brought and sold. Go to even an honest man's house and you may find articles claimed to be purchased by him even though he cannot produce any document in support of such purchase which may not be handy or may be Lost, misplaced or untraceable. That by itself, cannot give rise to any reasonable belief as to their being stolen or fradulently obtained.