DEBI PROSHAD KALWAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Rule was issued on one ground alone, namely, that in the absence of: a definite charge under Section 379/114, I. P. C., the conviction of the petitioner was improper and illegal. The facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) A boy of the name of Dhuman Kalwar was arrested as he was removing a pulley from the premises of Messrs. Burn & Co., Engineers. He explained his possession of the pulley by saying that shortly after his arrival in Calcutta he met the present petitioner who promised him a reward of four annas for carrying a load for him, and that the accused then took him to Messrs, Burn & Co.'s workshops and brought out a crane-pulley and put it on his head.

(3.) The boy Dhuman gave evidence to this effect and his story has been accepted both by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The charge on which the accused was tried was a charge under Section 379. The trying Magistrate, taking into consideration the fact that the actual removal was the work not of the petitioner but of the boy who was acting under his directions, has convicted him not under Section 379 but, under Section 379/114. In other words, he has convicted him of the offence of abetment of theft.