LAWS(P&H)-2000-7-90

KULBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

Decided On July 28, 2000
KULBIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against order dated 5.5.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which petitioner herein was held guilty under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. This order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate has since been confirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 14.9.1987.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case had been that the petitioner on 11.9.1984 at Village Dadu Majra, kept in his dishonest possession stolen property, i.e., Atlas Cycle No. 7M-198583 belonging to Shanker Dass, Cycle No. HR-30706 (Hero), belonging to Ram Murti, Cycle No. 9M-026408, Atlas Cycle belonging to Ram Piara, Avon Cycle No. 007036 belonging to Harbhajan Singh, Avon Cycle No. 6886 belonging to Ram Dass, Cycle No. AK-31736 (Hero) belonging to Dharamvir, Cycle No. CH-339508 belonging to Jagdish, Cycle No. AE-28681 belonging to Nand Lal and two ceiling fans, make Unison, belonging to Utejpal Singh, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. The stolen properties, referred to above, were recovered from the petitioner on his disclosure statement made by him before ASI Ishwar Singh of CIA Staff in the presence of Constable Kishore Chander, Rajbir Singh, Bant Ram and Ashok Kumar. It is in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the petitioner that articles, referred to above, were recovered from the place disclosed by him.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating material put to him and pleaded false implication. He also stated that he was to get Rs. 2500/- from N.D. Pal in lieu of the work done and that he had gone to demand his money as the marriage of his sister was to take place on 8.9.1984 and that he was falsely implicated at the instance of Gurtej Pal Singh. He, however, led no evidence in defence.