BHOLANATH DAS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellate Bholanath Das has been convicted under Section 52 of the Indian Post Offices Act (Act 6 of 1898) and sentenced to R.I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo R.I for one month more.

(2.) THE Appellant was working as a postman at the Baripada Head Post Office till 27 -12 1962 when he was transferred to Rairangapur P.W. 36 the Inspector of Special Police Establishment, Puri, got some information from a secret source that the Appellant had secreted some postal articles, such as calendars, Punjikas, samples of medicines sent to some local people through post instead of delivering them to the respective addressees. On receipt of such information, he lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 24) on 3 -1 -1963 and proceeded to Baripada and secured the house said to have been in occupation of the Appellant, on 5 -1 -1963. He seized some articles under seizure list, Ext. 14 and submitted 80 charge -sheet for an offence under Section 52 of the Indian Post Offices Act. After due investigation the accused was put up for trial before the Special Judge, Puri, who convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) IN support of the prosecution case a number of witnesses have been examined. They may be classified as follows (1) Witnesses to occupation by the accused of the house from which the seizure was made. They are p.ws. 17, 19, 25, 26, 30 and 36; (2) Seizure witnesses such as p.ws. 19 and 30 (3); Witnesses connected with the despatch and delivery of postal packets containing calendars and Punjikas, said to have been recovered from the house of the accused. They are p.ws. 2, 3, 10 to 16 and 34(4) Witnesses connected with the despatch and delivery of sample medicine packets said to have been recovered from the house of the accused. They are p.ws. 1, 6, 31, 33 and p.ws. 4, 5, 7, 8, 32, 27, 28 and 29 some of whom are doctors, owners of drug -houses and representatives of drug -manufacturing firms and (5) Some other postal employees such as p.ws. 9, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24. The I.O. who conducted the case is P.W. 36 and P.W. 23 is a witness who appears to have made a complaint against the accused for not properly delivering letters to him.