RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is brought from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Solan, confhming, on appeal, the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of that District and convicting Rattan Lal under Section 380, I.P.C., but releasing him on Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that both Rattan Lal, the present Petitioner, and one Hari Mohan stole 1844 used X-ray films from the store of Lady Linlithgow Sanitarium, Kasauli, which were subsequently recovered at their instance. Accordingly both the accused were convicted by the learned Chief Judcial Magistrate, Solan, for the offence under Section 380, I.P.C. besides the Other offence under Section 457 of the I.P. Code. Both the accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. While their conviction under Section 457 was set aside, their conviction under Section 380, I.P. Code, was upheld and they were released on Probation of Offenders Act. Rattan Lal has felt aggrieved of the decision against him in appeal and he has filed the present revision.

(3.) It is fairly settled that while dealing with a case of revision against the appellate order of a criminal Court, ordinarily the High Court will not enter into a further appraisement of evidence on a pure question of fact. If a set of witnesses were believed by the Courts below and no compelling reason is pointed out why the appraisement of evidence made is to be set aside, the finding of fact arrived at has got to be accepted. In fact, unless it is pointed out that either there was no evidence or the evidence produced contra-indicated the offence, or in any other manner a miscarriage of justice has resulted, interference in revision will not be called for. In the instant case, I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and it was amply established that as many as 1000 used X-ray film were recovered at the instance of these accused. It could admit of no doubt that these X-ray films belonged to that hospital. There was a report of theft and sub-sequent recovery was made from the accused. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at in-the Court below that the two accused were guilty of the offence under Section 380, I.P.C. could not be assailed. It Can neither be held to be a case of no evidence, or even a case where the evidence was not properly appreciated.