Imamuddin Khan vs Emperor

Varma, J.—The petitioner Imamuddin Khan has been convicted by a Magistrate exercising Second Class powers, u/s 411, I.P.C, and sentenced to four months'' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50, in default to one month's further rigorous imprisonment. He was tried along with one Gati Koiri who has been acquitted by the trial Court.

The case for the prosecution is that a "polar" light belonging to the Hajipur Municipality was stolen away from its post on 24th June 1933 and an information was lodged at the thana. The police not finding any clue submitted a final report "true." On 20th December 1935, about two and a half years after the theft Imamuddin brought a "polar" light (Ex. 1) to the shop of one Bhaiyalal who is a municipal light contractor for repairs. It appears that Bhaiyalal and his brother Matadin at once recognized it as the missing municipal lamp which was stolen on 24th June 1933. When questioned by Bhaiyalal and Matadin the petitioner said that it was given to him by some one for repairs and then started to run away. He was arrested and brought before the Municipal Vice-Chairman. After the usual investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Imamuddin and also against one Gati Koiri from whom Imamuddin alleged to have received the lamp for repairs.

The Courts below were of opinion that the identity of the stolen lamp was established in as much as it was identified by people who had occasion to handle the particular lamp and there was no reason why their story should be doubted. The appellate Court has not accepted the evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner to prove that he was a repairer of lamps and that the particular lamp was given to him by one Gati Koeri. The lower appellate Court remarks that if the petitioner was himself a repairer of lamps there was no necessity for him to bring the lamp to P.W. 1 for repairs. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has also relied upon the fact that when asked as to how it came to be in possession of the petitioner he started to run away.

Conceding for the time being that the identity of the lamp is established, we have to see whether on the materials mentioned by the Courts below it is safe to convict the petitioner u/s 411. The lamp in question is found in the possession of the petitioner after two and half years of the theft. So, naturally, no presumption can arise against him u/s 114, Evidence Act. If the petitioner knew that it was stolen property one would not expect him to take it to the Very person who was likely to identify it. He carries on business at Mirchagarh within Lalganj police station of the District of Muzaffarpur. It is not the prosecution case that from Mirchagarh the petitioner came to Hajipur to steal the lamp. He is a cycle repairer according to his own statement. It may be that some one knowing that he used to carry on repairs entrusted him with the repair of this lamp and instead of admitting his inability to repair the lamp the petitioner took it to P.W. 1 in the hope of getting it repaired. As regards the other material on which the conviction has been based, that is the conduct of the petitioner when asked as to how he came to be in possession of the lamp, in my opinion, that also does not carry the matter much further against him, because often an innocent man when suddenly confronted with a situation like the present one is apt to place as much distance between the stolen property and himself as possible. Even as to the identity of the lamp it appears that the witnesses relied upon the presence of some new bolts and nuts in it said to have been supplied in consequence of certain repairs done to it; but these distinctive features were not described before the Police Officer, Mr. Brahmdeo Narayan Singh, who investigated the case. In this state of the evidence, I am of opinion that there are reasonable doubts if the petitioner had the lamp in his possession knowing it to be stolen.

Under the circumstances I set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner and direct that he be discharged from bail and set at liberty.