SHEWDHAR SUKUL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a Rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction should not be set aside on the ground that the production of the railway receipt does not establish the possession of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was prosecuted for receiving stolen property, under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in the form of a package containing some piece-goods, at the railway station Takia, on the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway. The goods belonged to a firm of dealers of the name of Ramkissen Das Jaiparmal, and were missed from their godown on the 25th December, 1912. Information of the disappearance of the package was given to the police on the 27th December, and it seems that, on the 28th December, Seo Sagar, a jemadar of that firm, having come to know that the goods had been despatched to Takia, started for that railway station. On arrival at Takia on the following morning, 29th December, he informed the station-master of the incident after he had found the package in question at the railway station amongst the goods that had to be delivered to various consignees. That morning, at 7 A. M. or thereabout, a man other than the petitioner came to take delivery of the goods, but on being questioned by the station-master he was not able to satisfy that officer that he was entitled to receive the goods. That man was sent away, and it seems that Seo Sagar said that he could bring the petitioner, Shewdhar Sukul, to whom the goods had been consigned for taking delivery, and, as a matter of fact, at about 10 A.M. Shewdhar Sukul, accompanied by Seo Sagar, came to the station, presented the railway receipt before the station-master, paid the freight for the goods and received delivery of the goods from the station-master.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no actual delivery took place, because, although the receipt had been returned to the railway office and the freight paid, the goods had not, as a matter of fact, been removed by the petitioner, and that, therefore, the transaction could not be construed either into receiving the goods or having possession over them.