SHEONATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are heard analogously and will be dealt with in one judgment. Petitioner Sheonath in Crl. Revision No. 3 of 1952 is a Fireman of the B. N. Rly. residing at Chakradharpur in Singhbhum district of Bihar State. Petitioner Mahammad Ali in Crl. Revision No. 4 of 1952 is also a Fireman of the B. N. Rly. residing at Chakradharpur. On 12 -5 -1951 a goods train from Bilaspur to Chakradharpur halted at Jharsuguda railway station. There were two engines attached to the goods train, one in the front and another in the rear. The prosecution case is that petitioner Mahammad Ali was working as a Fireman in the rear engine and that he brought four bags of rice and kept them in the rear engine of the goods train. Petitioner Sheonath was said to be working in the front engine of the said goods train and the prosecution case is that he also kept two bags of rice at Jharsuguda in the front engine. A constable on duty at Jharsuguda railway station named A. Makunda (P. W. 1) noticed the two petitioners carrying bags of rice to the two engines of the goods train and immediately reported the matter at the G. R. P., Jharsuguda. The A.S.I. on duty Sri S.C. Patnaik (P. W. 3) immediately went to seize the rice bags. He recovered about one maund and five seers of rice from an open empty wagon close to the rear engine and about ten seers of rice from the front engine. On the date of the occurrence the following notification (No. 41668 S. T. dated 15 -11 -1950) of the Government of Orissa in the Department of Supply and Transport was in force :

(2.) THOUGH a faint attempt was made to challenge the facts as stated by the prosecution, I see no reason for disagreeing with the findings of the two lower Courts to the effect that the two petitioners carried some bags of rice each and kept them in the goods train proceeding to Chakradharpur when it was halting at Jharsuguda railway station. In the case against petitioner Mahammad Ali there is a slight discrepancy about the place from where the rice was recovered. The constable on duty (P. W. 1) stated that he saw petitioner Mahammad Ali keeping the rice bags in the rear engine. But the evidence of the A. S. I. of Police (P. W. 3) shows that the rice was recovered from an open empty wagon close to the rear engine. This discrepancy, however, is very trivial. The constable was standing on the platform and it may be that when he saw Mahammad Ali proceeding towards the rear engine he assumed that the rice bags were kept in the engine itself and not in the open wagon close to the engine. His evidence to the effect that it was petitioner Mahammad Ali who took the rice bags to the rear engine side has not been shaken materially in cross -examination and that evidence coupled with the recovery of the rice bags by the A.S.I. of Police (P. W. 3) is sufficient to show that it was this petitioner who kept the rice bags there. So far as petitioner Sheonath is concerned, there is no material discrepancy at all about his having carried the rice bags and kept them in the front engine of the goods train.

(3.) IN my opinion, neither of these argu - ments is tenable.