STATE OF MYSORE Vs. RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a prosecution against the accused on charge that he committed an offence of theft of two new lorry tyres from the garage of P.W. 1. The lorry belonged to P.W. 4, whose driver P.W. 2 had taken the lorry to the garage of P.W 1 an August 21 1963 with two new tyres which P.W. 4 wanted to be fixed to his lorry. P.W. 1 stated that the disks were attached to the tyres but since the tyres could not be attached to the lorry, the lorry and the tyres remained in the garage. P.W. 3 the watchman of P.W. 1 gave evidence that at 4 a.m. on August 21, 1963 he found the two tyres inside the garage but some time before 6 a.m. he found them missing. He accordingly reported the matter at 6 a.m. to P.W. 2 who was sleeping there.

(2.) P .W. 7 the sub -inspector of police, Kalasipalyam, stated that he received the complaint Exhibit P -1 on August 23, 1963 from P.W. 1 about the theft of the tyres. He added that he suspected the accused and on September 26, 1963 he acquired information that the accused had been arrested and detailed in the Central Police Station. The witness added that he proceeded to the Central Police Station, and, when interrogated, the accused furnished information which led to the recovery of the tyres from P.W. 5. P.W. 5 gave, evidence that the accused sold those two tyres to him at 5 a.m. on the morning of August 22, 1963.

(3.) IN regard to the information which led to the discovery of the tyres and their seizure from P.W. 5, the Magistrate took an extremely unsupportable view that since the accused was in the custody of the officers in charge of the Central Police Station when he gave the information Ex. P -4 to P.W. 7, and, not in the custody of P.W. 7, the information was not admissible and did not fall within Section 27 of the Evidence Act.