Crl. Misc. No.M-16992 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-16992 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 11, 2010 Sadhu Ram …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered at the instance of Jaswinder Singh alleging that 9 electric motors had been stolen from factory premises which was lying closed on account of litigation. The co-accused of the petitioner had allegedly stolen 9 electric motors as informed by watchman. The petitioner is father of accused Des Raj who Crl. Misc. No.M-16992 of 2010 [2] had allegedly helped the accused persons in committing the theft of the motors. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had dismantled the electric motors and sold the same to the junk dealers. Petitioner has been involved in the case on the basis of the statement of Isha Ram, his co- accused. It will be debatable whether the statement of accomplice of the petitioner is admissible in the present case on the basis of the same being corroborated by other evidence. State counsel has opposed the petition contending that pursuant to a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of Rs.40000/- was made from the house of the petitioner which he had allegedly received after the sale of stolen electric motors. State counsel has read the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded during investigation wherein he had allegedly admitted that the money received by him on account of sale of stolen motors had been kept concealed by him in his house and he could get the same recovered. It is contended that the amount was also recovered. The first portion of the statement will have to be tested during the course of trial for its admissibility as it is prima facie hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner has already joined investigation. It will be debatable whether he had actually drawn any benefit from the sale of stolen motors. It does not appear to be a case where prima facie the connivance of the petitioner for commission of act of theft can be attributed to the petitioner. At the most, he could be said to have used the stolen articles after having come into possession of the same. Crl. Misc. No.M-16992 of 2010 [3] The petition is allowed. Interim order dated June 30, 2010 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions that the petitioner will join investigation as and when required by the police; he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner and that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the entire period of trial. August 11, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE