CHHOTEY LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was charged with having committed an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, but his appeal was dismissed.

(2.) In this Court, it has been contended that on the facts found and in the circumstances of the case the prosecution has failed to prove a case under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The following facts appear to have bean established. 2-1/2 years before the discovery of the articles at the applicant's house, these had been removed from the houses of the two complainants by means of a dacoity. The articles are four silver ornaments of total value of Rs. 100. The applicant is a goldsmith by caste and profession. He was asked whence he got those articles and he replied that he himself had made them for his wife. The articles were found, except in one case, on the person of the wife of the applicant. There is no evidence that any attempt had been made to conceal the property. On the other hand they were found at places where the goods belonging to the applicant or his wife would be naturally found. It was further found that, the explanation of the applicant that he had made those goods himself was false and that the goods had been really the property of the two complainants Gannu Singh and Govind Singh. The question is whether in the circumstances of the case the prosecution was entitled to raise the presumption that the applicant was in possession of the articles having reason to believe that they were stolen property.