THE STATE Vs. NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON December 14, 1966, at about 11 30 P.M. the luggage of Raj Mohan Soni (P.W. 4) was stolen from the second class waiting room at Jind Railway Station. According to the prosecution, the luggage was recovered shortly after the occurrence from Nihal Singh and Ram Chand accused -respondents. After investigation, in due course, the Police sent up the accused persons for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jind. On January 25, 1967 the Magistrate framed two separate charges against the accused persons in respect of an offence under Section 380 Indian Penal Code, and proceeded with the trial Thereafter, he recorded the entire prosecution evidence produced by the prosecution on February 1, 1967 and February, 2 1967 and then examined the accused persons on February 14 1967. The case was then adjourned to March 6, 1967, for production of the defence evidence No such evidence was however, produced and the case was ultimately fixed for final arguments At that stage on the application dated 16th March, 1967 of the accused persons, the Magistrate by the impugned order dated April 10, 1967, amended and altered the charge to one under Section 379, Indian Penal Code Thereafter, on the same date, Raj Mohan Soni applied for permission to compound the offence By the second impugned order the learned Magistrate granted the permission and acquitted the accused persons on the basis of the composition. Against those orders cultimating in acquittal of the accused persons, the State has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) IT may be noted that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Schedule II, while an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, is compoundable (when the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 250/ - ) an offence under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable at all. Thus, the controversy in this appeal mainly pivots around the question, whether the matters before the trial Court disclosed an offence under Section 380 or one under Section 379, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) KEEPING in view the gist of the evidence produced above, the question would further resolve itself into the issue: whether a Railway waiting room is a building used as a "human dwelling" within the contemplation of Section 380, Indian Penal Code.