Prem Chand vs State (U.T.) Chandigarh

Ujagar Singh, J.

Prem Chand revision petitioner was found on 2721982 by Parvesh Kumar, biding behind the drum of grease, in the workshop of Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh. At about 1.00 p.m., Parvesh Kumar, Chief Store Keeper of the workshop and Puran Singh were working in the store room of the workshop. When Parvesh Kumar came out of the store in connection with some work, he noticed the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioner was perplexed and, was apprehended by Parvesh Kumar. Both Parvesh Kumar and Puran Singh searched the person of the petitioner and from his left and right pockets, two bearings each were recovered. Thereafter the said store was checked and 35 other bearings were found to be missing. The petitioner was taken to police station and handed over to ASI Mani Ram (PW3) who recorded the statement of Parvesh Kumar Ex. PC. On the basis of the endorsement made on it, First Information Report was registered.

During interrogation, the petitioner made disclosure statement Ex. PE on 331982 which led to the recovery of 10 bearings which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex P.H. After completion of investigation. report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was put in Court. After framing the charge, the prosecution examined Puran Singh (PWI), Parvesh Kumar (PW2), ASI Mani Ram (PW 3), P.B. Parkash (PW 4) and Tarlok Nath (PW 5), Ram Gopal was given up as unnecessary and the prosecution case was closed. In his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. In his defence Surja Ram (DWI) was examined. After hearing the parties, the trial Court convicted the petitioner u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing him, the Court found it expedient to release him on probation and he was directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the effect that he would appear to receive the sentence as and when called upon within a period of one year and in the meantime, he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. He was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 300/ of the proceedings. The appeal preferred by him was declined and the probation was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was in service, therefore, the grant of probation meant loss of service. He has further argued that, as a matter of fact, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, no case is made out against the petitioner. Ordinarily, the grant of probation is not interfered with in criminal revision, but, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this particular case, as there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner, the concurrent findings of the Courts below were required to be interfered with in the ends of justice.

The learned State counsel has argued that the prosecution witnesses have not been proved to be inimical towards the petitioner and they have supported the prosecution. There is no reason to disturb the findings in revision.

Puran Singh (PWI) stated that on search of the petitioner nothing was recovered. The witness was declared hostile and in crossexamination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing could be elicited from him. Parvesh Kumar (PW 2) stated that on search of the petitioner, 2 bearings were recovered from a Duba & 2 more bearing were recovered from a bucket and these bearings are Ex. PI to P4. He also stated that the petitioner was apprehended and brought to the office and the police was summoned. Thereafter this witness was also declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor wherein he supported the recovery of 10 bearings in pursuance to the disclosure statement Ex. PE. From a reading of statements of these two prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution version does not get any support from them. ASI Mani Ram (PW 3) stated that he, along with three constables, was on patrol duty in Sector 29, Chandigarh where Parvesh Kumar (PW2) met him. He recorded his statement Ex. PC. The petitioner was produced by Parvesh Kumar, along with four bearings and he was arrested. The ASI went to the spot and prepared rough site plan. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded by him. On 331984, the petitioner made a disclosure statement Ex. PE and in pursuance thereof, got recovered 10 bearings PW 4 is P.B. Parkash Accounts Officer. He stated that according to the report, copy of which has been produced, 39 bearings were found less than the quantity entered in the register. PW 5 Tarlok Nath, Store Purchase Officer brought the summoned record and proved Ex. PH, copy of appointment letter of the petitioner. He further stated in his cross examination that on the day of theft at about 9.45 a.m., he, along with Ram Kumar went to the store and came to know about the theft. The petitioner was found carrying four bearings add immediately the petitioner put all those bearings in a little tin of grease and thereon he put a piece of cloth. They were summoned by the Chief Store Keeper Parvesh Kumar and they informed the General Manager who reached the spot. According to his statement, the police was informed later on and the police people came there at about 1.00 p.m. The petitioner was then arrested and taken to the police station without being handcuffed. He stated that four bearings were found from the said tin; whereas the petitioner admitted that 35 bearings were in his house.

After going through these statements, I find that the prosecution version with regard to the recovery of four bearings is not supported by the prosecution witnesses. No reliance can be placed on this part of the prosecution version.

The next limb of the prosecution version is about the disclosure statement made by the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, recovery of 10 bearings. The only evidence with regard to the disclosure statement and recovery in pursuance thereof is that of ASI Mani Ram (PW 3), according to whom the petitioner was brought by Parvesh Kumar and Puran Singh, PWs and he was then taken to the Police Station. This version put forth by this witness is contradicted by the other evidence on the record, as already remarked. If this witness can go to the extent of giving a twist to the facts so as to give a different prosecution version, it is not possible to have implicit reliance on the statement of this witness with regard to the disclosure statement and recovery in pursuance thereof.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that there is no reliable evidence to prove the offence u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below, can be safely described as based on no evidence.

This revision is, therefore, accepted and the finding about the petitioner being guilty and requiring him to furnish personal bond and surety bond is set aside. The petitioner, thus, stands acquitted. The petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 300/ which amount was imposed on him as costs of litigation if the same has already men deposited.

Revision allowed.