PANALAL PAL AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Panalal and Dhirendra Kumar Sarkar have filed this revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj -Keonjhar, finding them guilty under Section 489 -D, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing each of them to undergo Rule 1 for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months. At the time of admitting this application, this Court and issued a notice to the Petitioners to show cause why the sentences should not be enhanced.

(2.) MR . M.S. Rao. learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners argued the whole matter as if in appeal and showed cause against their conviction also.

(3.) THE prosecution case was that on May 29, 1955, at village Kailpal in the sub -division of Keonjhar the Petitioners were found in possession of a suit -case (M.O. I) containing certain materials M.Os. H to XI, and were taken into custody. The whole case of the prosecution was that P.W. 1 a constable had been deputed to Mauza Madhukeshari to maintain peace, since there was an apprehension of communal trouble. P.W. 7 the Sarpanch of that Mauza came and informed him about the suspicious movement of the Petitioners. He had the information that when P. Ws. 1 and 3 along with certain other persons were sitting, Natabar Rout who was subsequently added as an accused, but since acquitted, came and informed them that the Petitioners were making notes and requested P.W. 7, if he could circulate them in the market. According to him the Petitioners had given him the assurance that they would take back the notes if they are not accepted by the people. P.W. 7 asked Natabar to meet him at 4 p.m. and accordingly the latter came and saw P.W. 7 in the presence of P.W. 2. By that time the Petitioners (sic) removed themselves from the village Madhukeshari to Kailapal to the house of P.W. 4. Eventually P.W. 7 informed, P.W. 1 the constable, and they proceeded to the house of P.W. 4. There they found the accused Panalal sleeping on a cot and accused Sarkar sleeping on the verandah with the suitcase (sic) head, with M. as. II to XIV. Certain other villagers including P.W. 5 and 6 also gathered there and P.W. 8 the Choukidar had accompanied P. Ws. 1 and 7. On their insistence the suit -case was opened and M.Os. II to XI were seized under Ext.2. This happened at about midnight of that day. On the next morning, P.W. 1 went with the Petitioners and the aforesaid material objects to the Police Station at Ramachandrapur where he lodged the first information on the basis of which the officer in -charge of the police station (P. W. 12) drew up the first information report (Ext. 5). Subsequently, investigation was conducted by P. Ws. 9 and 11 and eventually the Appellants were charge -sheeted and they were committed to stand their trial.