Case: Ajendra Nath Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

bales which were despatched by the Kanpur Woollen Mills and that the gate passes and the invoices produced by Kunzru were not proved as persons who wrote them had not been examined. Kunzru produced the originals of these documents. He is the salesman of the Kanpur Woollen Mills. His cross-examination in no way indicates that his statement about the genuineness of the invoices and gate passes was questioned in cross- examination. There is nothing to suppose that the invoices and gate passes produced in Court did not correctly represent the articles placed inside particular bales to which specific numbers were given and that those bales were despatched from the Mills in accordance with the gate passes. In this connection reference was made to the fact that five of the shawls recovered were of violet colour and no shawl of such a colour was mentioned in any of the invoices. There can be a possibility of a misdescription in the invoices, There can be a possibility of the violet shawls being the property stolen in some other incident. The fact remains that even the violet shawls are not claimed by the appellant as his own. So, we do not consider any force in this contention for considering the finding of the High Court defective about the property recovered to be stolen property.9. With respect to the identity of the bed-sheets, there is the evidence of P.Ws. 16 and 24. P.W. 16 deposed that he had supplied 10 pairs of bed-sheets to a certain customer who disowned the bale. Thereupon he asked the Station Master, Ahimanpur to return the parcel to Karur. He recognized the various sheets to be of his firm which they had despatched to Ahimanpur. He further deposed that before despatching the goods they paste the firm labels on them. He stated that his younger brother Krishna Murti had noted size-number and pattern over these sheets in his handwriting, as he happened to be at home on vacation. Krishna Murti, P.W.24, admits that certain labels on the bed-sheets were in his hand-writing, that he wrote them under instructions of his brother and that he had not written sirnilar numbers on any other bed-sheets. He however stated subsequently that he did such type of markings casually, on occasions, and that the Sub-Inspector had also got him write the size, pattern etc., on certain other blank labels of the shop as well.The learned Additional Sessions judge did not rely on these statements and felt that the Investigating Officer might have got those markings on the labels of the recovered articles during the investigation. The High Court thought that there was no reason for doubting the correctness of the statements of these witnesses and for suspecting that the writings on the labels were obtained during the investigation. No question was put to P.W. 24 about the police making him write on the labels on the recovered articles. In fact, according to the witness, labels with his writings were shown to him for purposes of recognition and he recognized those writings to be his. The police took his writings on blank labels for purposes of comparison. We therefore see no good reason for considering the finding of the High Court with respect to the bed-sheets recovered to be stolen property to be wrong.10. It was also contended that it was not open to the High Court to record a finding about the recovered property to be stolen property when the Government had not appealed against the other co-accused who were acquitted on the basis of the finding that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property. We do not see any force in this contention. The mere fact that the learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the other accused on the ground that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property did not preclude the State from appealing against the acquittal of the appellant against whom there is better evidence for establishing that he was in possession of the stolen property than the evidence was against the other co-accused. The State could challenge the correctness of the findings of the learned Additional Sessions judge about the property being stolen property and, consequently, the High Court can record its own finding on that question.Lastly, it was also urged that even if the identity of the articles recovered with the articles stolen be established, no offence under s.414 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant as the other accused have been acquitted and it is not known whom the appellant is supposed to have helped in concealing the stolen property. Section 414 I.P.C. 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 s.414 I.P.C. that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal. The circumstances of the recovery sufficiently make out that the property was deliberately divided into different packets and was separately kept. May be that the property failing to the share of a particular thief was kept separately. It was recovered from several different places in the same house. These places included an iron safe and an underground cellar. The evening before, several persons, including the appellant, were found to be coming out of the back door of the house which had its front door locked. The appellant also knew the whereabouts of the property inside the house of his maternal grandfather. He attempted to sell a few mufflers a day before the recoveries were made. He was seen arriving at the house, during the night, in a car with some persons and then removing property which looked like bales from the car to the house.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was also contended that it was not open to the High Court to record a finding about the recovered property to be stolen property when the Government had not appealed against the other co-accused who were acquitted on the basis of the finding that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property. We do not see any force in this contention. The mere fact that the learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the other accused on the ground that the property recovered was not proved to be stolen property did not preclude the State from appealing against the acquittal of the appellant against whom there is better evidence for establishing that he was in possession of the stolen property than the evidence was against the other co-accused. The State could challenge the correctness of the findings of the learned Additional Sessions judge about the property being stolen property and, consequently, the High Court can record its own finding on that question.Lastly, it was also urged that even if the identity of the articles recovered with the articles stolen be established, no offence under s.414 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant as the other accused have been acquitted and it is not known whom the appellant is supposed to have helped in concealing the stolen property. Section 414 I.P.C. 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 s.414 I.P.C. that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal. The circumstances of the recovery sufficiently make out that the property was deliberately divided into different packets and was separately kept. May be that the property failing to the share of a particular thief was kept separately. It was recovered from several different places in the same house. These places included an iron safe and an underground cellar. The evening before, several persons, including the appellant, were found to be coming out of the back door of the house which had its front door locked. The appellant also knew the whereabouts of the property inside the house of his maternal grandfather. He attempted to sell a few mufflers a day before the recoveries were made. He was seen arriving at the house, during the night, in a car with some persons and then removing property which looked like bales from the car to the house.