SOVA CHAND BOTHRA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried by a learned Additional Presidency Magistrate upon a charge under Section 54A of the Calcutta Police Act, He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-In default of payment of the fine he was ordered to undergo three week's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was the manager of a firm. B.L. Choraria and Corporation. According to the prosecution 98 bags of burnt cartridges were found on 9 April 1946 in front of the premises of this firm. According to the evidence the petitioner immediately produced certain cash memos which were produced by the prosecution in this case. The petitioner himself did not give any evidence as to how these burnt cartridges had been obtained. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of these goods in circumstances which could reasonably give rise to the belief that the goods were stolen or had been improperly obtained.

(3.) I am not satisfied that in the eye of the law the petitioner was in possession of these goods. There was no evidence that he had purchased them himself on behalf of the firm or had obtained them in any other way on behalf of the firm. They may well have been purchased by the members of the firm and brought to the premises of the firm. All that the prosecution proved was that these goods were outside the premises of which the petitioner was the manager. As manager he certainly was not the owner of the goods and, as I have said, possession in the eye of the law would be with the owners of the business. Had it been established that the manager had himself purchased or obtained these goods in somewhat suspicious circumstances, entirely different considerations would apply. But as I have already said all that has been proved is that the goods were found outside the premises of a firm and therefore it was said that the manager must have been in possession of them.