BISWANATH DUBEY Vs. GHARBIGAN CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Biswanath Dubey was convicted under Section 215/511, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to undergo a further month's rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine, Rs. 30 was directed to be paid to the complainant, a village chaukidar, by way of compensation. Section 215, Indian Penal Code, runs as follows: Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any moveable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all means in his power to cause the offender to be apprehended and convicted of the offence be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(2.) And what the petitioner has been convicted for is an attempt to commit this offence. After his conviction he appealed to the learned Sessions Judge of Shahabad who dismissed his appeal. The facts of the case are that on 20th January 1939, the bullock of the complainant chaukidar disappeared; evidently his first impression was that it had strayed, because he took no steps to lodge any information until 27 January, a week later. Having failed to find it, he lodged a saneha at the police station; nothing more happened until 23 February, when, as has been found by the Courts below, and as must now be accepted, the petitioner came to the chaukidar and offered to recover the bullock if paid Rs. 25. The complainant refused to accept these terms and, it is said, a panchayati was called, but still the petitioner, though admitting his previous offer, did nothing.

(3.) On 8 March the petitioner filed a petition before the Subdivisional Officer to the effect that the chaukidar was harassing him with regard to the recovery of his bullock; and finally, on 10 March the chaukidar. filed the complaint which has led to the petitioner's conviction. I am of opinion that this conviction cannot possibly be sustained. Section 215, which is a Section rarely used, aims primarily at professional trackers and other persons who, being usually in league with thieves or well aware of their proceedings, obtain money for recovery of stolen property without making any effort to bring the offenders to justice.