LAWS(RAJ)-1974-2-21

SURAJMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On February 12, 1974
SURAJMAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal by defendant Surajmal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated 29.1.1972 in a suit for damages.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent, State of Rajasthan, purchased and transhipped from Panagarh 2630 victualic pipes as they were needed for the use of the Rajasthan Canal Project. The said pipes were received at Hanumangarh railway station during the month of July, 1959 and thereafter. The work of unloading and carrying of the said pipes was given on contract to Surajmal appellant by the Rajasthan Canel Project authorities It is alleged that Surajmal with the help and connivance of Prakash Chind (now deceased) managed to steal away 135 pipes out of the above lot of 2830 pipes on the night between 29th and 30th August, 1959. The matter was reported to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh on 10 10 59. During the course of investigation 16. out of 135 pipes ware recovered from the soop of (sic) Prasad an iron merchant of New Delhi on 4.11.1959. The remaining pipes numbering 119 could neither be traced out nor recovered by the police. The police after investigation put up a challan against Surajmal and Prakash Chandra Under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh The case was later on transferred to the court of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner -cum -Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh. The latter after trial acquitted Surajmal and Prakash Chandra, but on appeal the High Court convicted Surajmal Under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, vide judgement dated 17 -4 -1964.

(3.) THE defendants traversed the allegations made in the plaint and denied having committed theft of 135 pipes. The learned Additional District judge decreed the suit against Surajmal for Rs. 7,320.80 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree. The suit against the legal representatives of Prakash Chandra was dismissed. Hence this appeal by Surajmal defendant.