SANTANU KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT of conviction for an offence Under Section 411, IPC and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bissam Cuttack and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief, is that the informant. (PW 3) runs a video hall at Muniguda. On the night of 20 -8 -1985 his son closed the video hall and returned home. In the morning of 21 -8 -1985 when the informant opened the video hall he found his VCR and remote controls worth Rs. 18,000/ -missing. He then lodged FIR at Muniguda P.S. The above articles were seized by the police from the studio house of the accused petitioner on 22 -8 -1985. One Bibhisan who was serving in the video hall of the informant along with the present petitioner were charged for various offences with regard to the said articles. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted Bibhisan but convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above.

(3.) THE evidence led by the prosecution reveals that the Police during investigation seized one VCR and two remote controls from the studio house of the petitioner on 22 -8 -1985. On the previous day the Police had seized a gift letter in respect of the remote controls and a money receipt in respect of the VCR on production by the informant. The serial number of the VCR seized from the studio house of the petitioner tallied with the serial number stated to have been mentioned on the money receipt seized from the informant. But curiously enough the money receipt in question has not been proved in the case and the informant has not disclosed as to when and from whom he had acquired the VCR and the remote controls. Further more, the seized articles had not been produced in Court and legal evidence is wanting that the seized articles really belonged to the informant.