GOLAMJAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners were convicted under Section 411, Penal Code. They were found taking away by river two logs of wood which were seized. One of these logs had a mark A. D. A. on it. They were convicted under Section 411, Penal Code for being found in possession of the log with the mark on it. Their appeal was dismissed. They have challenged the legality of their conviction by this petition.

(2.) THE facts found are that the logs were being taken up the stream at about mid -night on a rafter by the petitioners. Lalchand Namasudra, S. I., P. W. 3 saw them. He suspected that the logs were stolen property. He seized the logs and prepared a seizure list which was witnessed by three persons. One of these witnesses was examined at the trial. He is Monbahadur Chetti, P. W. 2. The seizure list contains the statement that one of the logs bore the mark A. D. A.

(3.) IT has been amply proved that the mark A. D. A. was of Ahmed Ali, a Mahaldar. The log which has been treated as stolen property bore this mark. The learned Government Advocate has conceded that conviction under Section 411, Penal Code is not sustainable. The reason is obvious. When there is no evidence that the log had been stolen before it was picked up from the stream by the petitioners, they could not be held to have received or retained stolen property with the requisite knowledge or the intention. The log had not been stolen; nor was any other offence committed with respect to it which would have made it stolen property before it was picked up. Their conviction under Section 411, Penal Code, therefore is not sustainable I as held in - -'Phul Chand v. Emperor', AIR 1929 All 917 (A).