CHANDMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL three revisions arise out of the same case and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these three revisions briefly stated are that a theft had taken piece in the temple of Ambaji situated in Pratap garh. In the night between 17th and 18th of January, 1975. This was discovered by Pujari Ram Chandra on the Morning of 18 -1 -75 when he went in the temple and found that the western door of the temple was lying open and some clothes etc. were lying scattered He thereupon informed Shri Shambhu Nath, who is the manager of the temple Thereafter a report was lodged by Ram Chandra at P.S Pratapgarh on l8 -l -78 vide Ex. P. 2. The list of the stolen pro erries was also submitted separately on the same day. The police registered a case Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and started investigation. Accused Mangi Lal was arrested on 30 -5 -78. While in police custody, Mangilal gave information vide Ex. P. 16A on 3 -5 -75 to the effect that out of the stolen property from the temple of Mataji, he had sold some articles including stolen articles, namely, mukut bangles, kundal and other small articles to Chandanmal Sunar of village Javra. On 10 -6 -75, Mangilal further gave information to the effect that the money received by him from Chandmal on account of the sale of the aforesaid articles had been deposited by him in a post office. This Information was recorded vide Ex. P 16 in the meantime, Chandmal had also been interrogated by the Police and Chandmal produced nise saries and some pieces of cloth, gota kinari etc. before the police on 31 -1 -75 vide Ex. P. 7. Later while in custody, the accused Chandmal on 1 -6 -75, gave information to the police voluntarily that he had melted the ornaments purchased by him from Mangi Lal and had turned them into the ingot and had sold the same through Shantilal Dalal at Ratlam and he was prepared to get the same recovered. This information was recorded vide Ex. P. 17. In pursuance of this information, Candmal was taken 1o Ratlam where he identified Satya Narain as person to whom the ingot had been sold and at bis instance, Satya Narain produced the in got, which was taken possession of by the police vide Ex. P. 10. After completing the investigations, the police put up a challan for offence Under Section 380 and 487 IPC against Mangilal, Chandmal and one Kalicharan to whom also Mangilal is alleged to have disposed of some of the stolen articles. The learned Magistrate framed charges Under Section 457 and 383 IPC against the accused Mangilal and Under Section 411 and 414 against Chandmal and Under Section 411 against Kalicharan, At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Pratapgarh, by his judgment dated 30 -5 -77, convicted Mangilal Under Section 380 IPC, read with Section 75 IPC for which later a charge had been framed against him and the accused Chandmal Under Section 414 IPC. He however, acquitted Kalicharan of the offence Under Section 411 IPC Mangilal was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprionment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - whereas Chandmal was sentenced to two years' r.i. and a fine of Rs. l,0C0/ -and in default of payment of fine to four months' further r.i. By the same order, he also directed that the stolen saris and the ingot of gold weighing 44 gms. and 650 miligrams to be given to the manager of the temple of Ambaji from where they had been stolen. He also passed necessary orders in respect of the other article with which we are at present not concerned. Aggrieved of this, Chandmal and Mangilal accused filed separate appeals. Satya Narain who had produced the in got also filed an appeal. The accused persons challenged their convictions and sentences whereas Satya Narain challenged the order of the earned Magistrate regarding the delivery of the ingot to the temple. The learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, dismissed the appeal of Mangilal. He partly accepted the appeal of Chandmal and instead of his conviction Under Section 414 convicted him only Under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to one year's r.i. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. On Satya Narain's appeal the learned Judge directed that as there appeared to be a dispute about the title to the ingot, the same should be temporarily confiscated to the State and the parties claiming title may get the same declared by a competent civil court. Now aggrieved of this order, three revisions have been filed. Revision No. 179 has been filed by Chandmal challenging his conviction and sentence wnereas revisions no. 228 and 294 have been filed respectively by Satya Narain and Sambhu Nath, the manager of the temple claiming possession of the ingot and challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge for temporary confiscation of the same and directing the title to be decided by a Civil Court,

(3.) SO far as the revision filed by Chandmal is concerned, the learned Counsel Shri Soni has first tried to assail the conviction and sentence passed against him but after some arguments, he gave up his contention in respect of the conviction but confined himself to the question of sentence only. Having regard to all the circumstances of The case and the fact that the accused Chandmal has already undergone about one and half months of the imprisonment, that the occurrence is as old as 18 -1 -75, that the stolen property has already been recovered in bulk. 1 am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused Chand Mal back to jail on this distance to time after the incident and in lieu of the remaining part of the substantive sentence awarded to him, a suitable amount of fine may be imposed,