Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Arguments of the opposite party-State

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State opposes the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings of fact involved in this case and therefore, no interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for. He submits that in order to convict the petitioner under Section 414 of IPC, the theft report of the recovered article is not a condition precedent. He also submits that although the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, but they have identified their signatures on the seizure list and other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case with consistent evidence. The learned trial court has scrutinized the evidences and found that there is consistent evidence against the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner has been rightly convicted under Section 414 of IPC. So far as the acquittal of Surender Singh is concerned, the learned counsel submits that there is no evidence to link Surender Singh with the alleged offence and accordingly he has been given the benefit of doubt by the learned lower appellate court and has been acquitted.

Findings of this Court

6. The prosecution case is based on the written report lodged by the informant (P.W.-3) on 27.07.2005 on the basis of secret information with regard to storage of illegal coal and on 27.07.2005 at 12:30 p.m., the informant along with the police party reached near the house of the petitioner for conducting a raid, but on seeing the raiding party, one person fled away. The people of the locality gathered there disclosed the name of the absconded person as Jatlu Chouhan, the petitioner. On Search, eight tonnes of coal was recovered near the house of the petitioner and thereafter, documents were demanded from the father of petitioner, but no documents were produced. Accordingly, the coal was seized and seizure list was prepared in presence of two witnesses, namely, Sudama Karmali and Anil Kumar Powariya. The people nearby further informed that the coal was stacked by one Surender Singh for illegal trade. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as Bermo P.S. Case No. 12 of 2005 dated 27.05.2005 under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and the co- accused Surender Singh. The charge-sheet was submitted under Section 414 of IPC and cognizance was also taken under the said section. The prosecution has examined five witnesses; P.W.-1 Sudama Karmali, P.W.-2 Anil Powariya, P.W.-3 Ajay Kumar Sahu, P.W.4 Vijay Kumar Thakur and P.W.-5 Chandra Shekhar Singh. The prosecution has proved Ext. 1- Signature of P.W.-1 on seizure list; Ext.1/1 - Signature of P.W.-2 on seizure list; Ext. 1/2 - Seizure list; Ext. 2 -Written Report and Ext. 3-Formal F.I.R.

7. The learned trial court appreciated the evidences produced by the prosecution and held the petitioner as well as the co-accused guilty of offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and held that the coal was recovered from the courtyard of the house of the petitioner hidden behind the bushes and that the same was for illegal trading by the co- accused, Surender Singh. The learned trial court found that the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 were consistent and the petitioner could not produce any documents in connection with recovered coal. The learned trial court also considered that the seizure list witnesses had at least identified their signatures on the seizure list, though as per them there was no recovery in their presence. The learned trial court sentenced the present petitioner as well as the co-accused, Surender Singh for two years rigorous imprisonment punishable under Section 414 of IPC. The learned trial court also considered the submission of the petitioner and the co-accused that they have neither been convicted in any criminal case earlier nor there is any criminal case pending against them, but found that it had come in the evidence that so far as co-accused Surender Singh is concerned, he was an accused in another case also.

11. It has been held in the case of Ajendranath vs. State of M.P., AIR 1964 SC 170 that Section 414 IPC makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property. It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 IPC that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft.

12. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below calling for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.