BHAGIA Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment governs also Criminal Appeals Nos. 108-B to III-B of 1926, by Shekhji, Bahadur Khan, Govinda and Tukaram. I do not agree with the learned Sessions Judge's opinion that Section 162, Criminal P. C, does not override the provisions of Section 27 Evidence Act. The Sessions Judge interprets the, words "any person" in 162 as "any person other than the accused." His reasoning is this. Sections 160 and 161, Criminal P.C., refer to witnesses as side notes to them indicate : Section 162 which immediately follows these must, therefore, have been intended to refer by association to witnesses. Side notes are no real guide to the intention of the legislature. The safest guide to it is the language of the section and it is difficult to see how it could be plainer. Abrogation by implication is by no means uncommon and that such abrogation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act results is no reason for not interpreting the section according to its plain language. Nor is the provision contained in Section 27 of the Evidence Act of such paramount importance that there should be great hesitation in accepting an implied abrogation of it. It is to be further noted that Section 162, Criminal P.C., by Clause (2) expressly saves Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. The implication of the abrogation of Section 27, Evidence Act, is so obvious that we should expect that section also to be expressly saved.

(2.) APART , however, from the statements admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions of the appellants. Bhagaji admittedly produced a lota Article B. 1, containing 15 Chandori and 62 Buchadawala coins from a cowdung heap wherein they were concealed; also the Charvi, Article C. Govinda produced 7 Chandori coins, 33 Buchadawala and 2 rupees of 1862 which were buried in his field. Tukaram who is Govinda's brother is proved to have possessed 70 Buchadawala coins which he gave to a Sonar Kashiram (P. W. 9) to make into ornaments which were before the Court. He produced 8 Chandori coins from a roof.

(3.) NONE of the appellants have satisfactorily accounted for their possession of these coins and it is sufficiently proved that they came out of Venkatrao's store which was buried in his house with the Charvi, Article C, and stolen