RAHAS BIHARI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions have been preferred as against the judgments passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 89 -B of 1981 and 90 -B of 1981 by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir, confirming the judgment in G. R. Case No. 121 of 1976 (T. R. No. 63/67) of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Titilagarh, convicting both the petitioners Under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Since both the petitioners had been tried in one case and as against their convictions had preferred two different appeals which had been disposed of by a common judgment, against which the present revisions are preferred, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Smt. Nandini Satapathy, the then Chief Minister of Orissa had come to Titilagarh on 10 -4 -1976, The informant in the case is P. W. 1 who was an active member of the Congress Party and had the charge of organising the Congress Party meeting etc. He had borrowed a jeep bearing registration No. ORR 669 from one S. L. Mediratta for Congress Party work and was having the jeep under his control which, while had been parked in front of the house of P. W. 1 was taken away by the petitioners without his consent. P. W. 1, lodged the F.I.R. on the next day on 11 -4 -1976 on the basis of which a case was registered and after investigation, petitioners were charge -sheeted Under Section 406/114, Indian Penal Code and Under Section 126, Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently however, after hearing the parties charge was framed Under Section 379, Indian Penal Code

(3.) MR . Deepak Misra, appearing for the petitioners in both the cases, has urged that the convictions of the petitioners are wholly unwarranted and misconceived since (i) the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 1 was admittedly grossly delayed for which absolutely no explanation was forthcoming and hence the prosecution story must be rejected out right and (ii) the petitioners were all along working under a bona fide claim of rights and hence there could be no finding that they were guilty of theft.