Decided on April 30,1970

In Re: Deepchand Appellant
STATE Respondents


K.N.MUDALIYAR, J. - (1.) THE appellant seeks to file this appeal against his conviction for an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code (two counts). In brief the facts proved by the prosecution are mentioned here below.
(2.) IN February, 1968 there was a theft in the house of P.W. 2. A ceiling fan (M.O. 2), a brass drum (M.O. 3), a brass Kudam (M.O. 4), a brass Thavalai (M.O.5) a brass box (M.O. 6), a brass Adukku (M.O. 7) a brass Dabba (M.O. 8), two brass Adukkus (M.O. 9 series) a brass Chombu (M.O. 10), a brass plate (M.O. 11), twenty items of eversilver utensils (M.O. 12 series) an eversilver Kuthu -Vilakku (M.O. 13), an eversilver soap box (M.O. 14) and an electric table light (M.O. 15) were stolen from the house by P.W. 4 who later sold the stolen articles, in addition to a silver plate and two eversilver articles, to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 75. The prosecution claims that M.Os. 2 to 15 were worth more than Rs. 300. The appellant promised to make a further payment of some more amount later. P.W. 4 also committed theft of a copper Deksa (M.O. 1) worth Rs. 300 from the house of P.W. 1 and sold the same to the appellant for Rs. 25.
(3.) P .W. 4 was arrested. He took P.W. 5 the Sub -Inspector of Police to the appellant's pawn shop. On being questioned by P.W. 5 regarding his transaction with P.W. 4, the appellant produced M.O. 1 as well as M.Os. 3 to 15 and several other articles. M.O. 2 which had in the meanwhile been sold by the appellant to P.W. 3 Srinivasan for Rs. 80 was also recovered from P. W. 3 on the information of the accused. Subsequently, P.W. 4 was convicted on his own plea of guilty. The appellant admits that he purchased M.Os. 1 to 15 from P.W. 4. But he pleads that he received the articles innocently for value without knowledge that they were stolen property. His further plea is that M.O. 1 was pledged with him by P.W. 4 for Rs. 55 and the article was subsequently purchased outright for Rs. 70. The appellant would say that P.W. 4 was deliberately and falsely mentioning the amount as Rs. 25 at the instance of P.W. 5. As regards the purchase of M.Os. 2 to 15 the appellant would maintain that he had paid Rs. 75 for M.O. 2, Rs. 40 for the silver articles and Rs. 80 for the five items of brass vessels. The statement of P.W. 4 according to the plea of the appellant, is wholly false. The appellant did not examine any defence witness.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.