SRI. HARIHAR ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Balasore upholding the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and a sentence of R.I. for two months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case was that an electric motor belonging to the Sabira Rice Mill was stolen on the night of 22 -2 -1971 First information Report was lodged by P.W. 4 Arjun Nayak, a clerk of the said Rice Mill on 24 -2 -1971 at 2.30 p.m. It was alleged that on 23 -2 -1971 at about 9 a.m. while the Officer -incharge of Balasore Sadar Police Station (P.W. 6) was returning after investigating into a case, he found the Petitioner going towards Balasore carrying an electric motor wrapped in a torn cloth on his bicycle. On suspicion the electric motor along with the bicycle of the Petitioner was seized under the seizure list Ext. 2 in presence of witnesses and the Petitioner was taken to custody. The particulars of the electric motor as mentioned in the seizure list were found to tally with those given in the F.I.R. After investigation the Petitioner was charge -sheeted under Section 380, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THAT there was a theft of the electric motor from the Rice Mill on the night of 22 -2 -1971 is amply proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. The evidence of these two witnesses went unchallenged as the Petitioner declined to cross -examine them. P.W. 5 testified that the electric motor in question had been sold by him to the Sabira Rice Mill on 1 -9 -1968. In view of the evidence of the above witness there can be no doubt that the Sabira Rice Mill was the owned of the electric motor and it was stolen from its possession on the night of 22 -2 -1971. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 clearly establishes that the electric motor was seized from the possession of the Petitioner on 23 -2 -1971 at about 9 a.m.. Their evidence about the seizure also remained unchallenged as the Petitioner declined to cross -examine them. The electric motor was not produced in Court at the time of trial for identification by the witnesses but the fact remains that the particulars of the motor as given in the seizure list tally with those given by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. There is therefore, no room for doubt that the electric motor which was seized from the possession of the Petitioner belonged to the Sabira Rice Mill and it was removed from its possession on the night of 22 -2 -1971. The Petitioner did not offer any explanation as to how he came by the electric motor.