LAWS(PAT)-1987-9-6

LAKHAN PASI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 10, 1987
LAKHAN PASI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners were convicted under Section 411 of the Indian t ennal Code on the allegation that a stolen radio transistorised was recovered from their possession. It is said that the radio belonged to the informant who had alleged that it was removed from his premises after breaking the lock which he discovered when he returned from his office. No one was named as the person who removed the radio. Quite some time after-precisely one month and a half the said radio, it was alleged, was recovered from the shop of the petitioners where they sell today.

(2.) TWO infirmities have been pointed out in which the conviction and sentence are sought to be set aside. Firstly, there was no evidence that the petitioners knew or had reason to believe that the radio was a stolen property, an essential ingredient before the matter could be brought within the purview of Section 411. Secondly recovery of the radio from the toddy shop of the petitioners has not been proved inasmuch as seizure witnesses have not been examined, the only witnesses being the informant and the investigating officer. Lastly, it is submitted that no test identification parade was held and for the first time the informant identified the radio in court. These, on facts and law, have not been assailed by the learned counsel tor the State. In my view, therefore, all these three questions are substantial questions of law. The petitioners could not be saddled with the knowledge that the radio was the stolen property, before the prosecution really laid the foundation that the petitioners voluntarily assisted in concealing or disposing of or making away with property, which they knew or had reason to believe to be stolen property. Since the recovery itself was challenged, this was also required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and lastly any identification in court either of person or article for the first time cannot be the basis of prosecution and consequential conviction. The application is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and the sentence are set aside.