JANAK YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by Sri A.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chapra, by his order dated the 9th July 1958, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months, which, on appeal, was reduced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, second court, Chapra, by his order dated the 30th May 1959, to a fine of Rs. 5, in default, one week's simple imprisonment.

(2.) The petitioner was a Municipal Commissioner of Chapra Municipality, and it was alleged that at about 5 p.m., on the 9th August, 1955, he went to the municipal office, and asked the complainant (P. W. 4), who was a municipal clerk, to show him the two letters, No. 902, dated 5-8-55, and 983, dated 6-8-55, which the petitioner had written to the Chairman, of the Chapra Municipality, and on, which the Chairman had passed certain orders. The complainant (P. W. 4) informed the petitioner that he had already shown him the two letters; but the petitioner insisted on seeing them again on the plea that he had forgotten the orders passed by the Chairman. On this, the complainant handed over the two letters to him when the petitioner left the place, taking away the two letters with him. On being asked by the complainant to return the letters, the petitioner told him that he was not going to return them. The petitioner proceeded towards the Sanitation office, and the complainant followed him asking the petitioner all the time to return the letters since they were official letters. On repeated request of the complainant, the petitioner told him that he would not return the letters," but was prepared to grant him a receipt for the same, and eventually, he granted a receipt, Ext. I, to the effect: "I took letter No. 902 dated 5-8-55, and 983G, dated 6-8-55, reg. Audit report of: July 55 from Shri Onkar Narayan Sinha clerk. He requested me to return the original letter. But I cannot give him."

(3.) After the petitioner took away the letters, the complainant reported the matter to the Chairman, and ultimately the present case was instituted.