RAM AUTAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted of the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation against him is that he was in possession of a stolen lota and a stolen thali.

(2.) This application in revision, in my opinion, should succeed on two grounds. First the whole case is a very suspicious one, and, secondly, even if all the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal be accepted, it has not been established that the appellant was in possession of the stolen articles.

(3.) On the first point. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge leaves an impression on the mind that the accusation was more or less reckless and that the appellant was charged with having stolen more things than have been established to have bean stolen property.