BRAJAMOHAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While functioning as a Police Constable, who was supposed to maintain law and order and to guard against the commission of theft, the petitioner stood charged under section 379 and in the alternative, under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, Tthe Code) with having committed theft of a brass piece belonging to the Rourkela Steel Plant on the New YearTs day of 1982 which was detected by three employees (P. Ws. 1 to 3) serving in the Central Industrial Security Force attached to the plant while the petitioner was coming on a bicycle from the plant site and was at the Hirakud Gate. P. W. 1 lodged the first information report. (Ext. 1), investigation followed and on its completion, a charge-sheet was place and the petitioner was prosecuted. The petitioner had denied to have committed theft and according to him, he had been involved falsely by P,Ws. 1 to 3 owing to a quarrel which, had occurred between him and P. Ws. 1 to 3. The prosecution had examined four witnesses three of whom had figured as witnesses to the occurrence and P.W. 4 was the Investigating Officer. In support of his defence, the petitioner had examined one witness.

(2.) Mr. H.B. Das, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, held that the charge of theft had been brought home to the petitioner. No specific finding was recorded in respect of the charge under Section 411 of the Code. It would follow that in view of the order of conviction in respect of the charge of theft, the petitioner was not convicted for the other offence. For his conviction under section 379 of the Code, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(3.) The petitioner unsuccessfully moved the Court of Session. Mr. R. N. Chatterjee, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, agreed with the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.