MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Muhammad Ibrahim, who appears to be some kind of a merchant in metals in the Cawnpore bazar, has been convicted of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The finding of the Magistrate who tried the case is that Muhammad Ibrahim knew or had reason to believe that the material called copper cloth was stolen property. Muhammad Ibrahim was tried along with one Ram Narain who also appears to be a second hand dealer in metals and other such materials in the Cawnpore bazar. The property stolen is described as 8 pieces of very fine copper netting known as copper cloth used for the lining of tube wells. There appears to be no room for doubt that this copper cloth was stolen from the Generalganj Station on the 20th or 21st June of the present year. It had been put in a waggon and brought to the Generalganj Will siding on the 20th of June. On the 21st of Juno it disappeared. The finding of both the Courts below is that it is stolen property, and I agree with that finding, and I shall not go into that part of the case any further.

(2.) Ram Narain has been convicted of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, in connection with this copper cloth. He appealed, his appeal was dismissed and he has not applied to this Court in revision. I also agree with the Courts below that the channel through which Muhammad Ibrahim received the copper cloth was Ram Narain. It was Muhammad Ibrahim who produced the copper cloth and sold it to the Empire Engineering Company far Rs. 112-8-0. The question which is pressed on me in revision is that there is no evidence to show that Muhammad Ibrahim possessed or retained this copper cloth with guilty knowledge such as is essential to a conviction under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. A further point was taken that the joint trial of Muhammad Ibrahim with Ram Narain has prejudiced Muhammad Ibrahim, and that at any rate he should be given an opportunity of being tried separately and apart from Ram Narain. I considered that question. It was I think a mistake on the part of the Magistrate who tried the case to have tried both the accused in one and the same trial. Very little reflection should have led the Joint Magistrate to the conclusion that Muhammad Ibrahim would probably, if not certainly, cite Ram Narain as a witness in his defence, but I do not see sufficient ground for interfering on that matter--the more so as any interference would simply lead to the trial of Muhammad Ibrahim a second time for one and the same offence.

(3.) I now go back to the question whether there is any evidence of dishonesty on the part of Muhammad Ibrahim. When he was called upon to account for the possession by him of this copper wire he at once said that he had bought it from Ram Narain for Rs. 48. He further said that a certain ghumnewala, apparently the broker Gaya Prasad, had brought a sample of copper cloth and asked him if he would purchase it. Muhammad Ibrahim further said that he offered Re. 1 per seer, the current price according to him being at that time 13 annas or 14 annas per seer, and it was according to this rate that he paid Ram Narain Rs. 48. To this account of the transaction he has throughout practically adhered. He says that he took the copper cloth to be secondhand stuff, and that the only use that he could make of it would be to melt it down. Gaya Prasad was cited as a witness by the prosecution, and so far as his evidence goes, it supports what Muhammad Ibrahim has said. He says he was present at the final transaction when the copper cloth passed from the hands of Ram Narain into the hands of Muhammad Ibrahim. There is further evidence which cannot be overlooked, namely the evidence of Mr. O Conor, an employee of the Empire Engineering Company, and there is the evidence of Rahmat Ali who describes himself as a contractor for the Empire Engineering Company and is described by Mr. O Conor in the same terms. Mr. O Conor s evidence is valuable so far as it relates to the fact of the copper cloth being stolen property. He also says that this specially manufactured article is manufactured to the order of the Empire Engineering Company. This particular copper cloth should have arrived somewhere in the middle of June. But on the 20th of June as there was urgent need of it, and it had not arrived, he asked Rahmat Ali to see if he could get any such article in the bazar. Three or four days after Rahmat Ali came to Mr. O Conor and said that a man undertook to get similar netting from Bombay. On the 15th of July Rahmat Ali brought a sample from somebody and was told to get more of it as quickly as possible. Mr. O Conor was convinced that the copper cloth which was procured to the Company was the copper cloth which had been stolen. I do not think it necessary to set out here the evidence of Rahmat Ali. It was disbelieved by the Joint Magistrate, and I think rightly disbelieved. The more one reads it, the more he feels very doubtful about Rahmat Ali s bona fides about this transaction. The evidence given, which connects Muhammad Ibrahim with the offence for which he had to answer is (1) possession of the copper wire, but possession some 5 weeks after it had been stolen, (2) the account which Muhammad Ibrahim gives as to how he came to be possessed of this copper wire.