JAGANNATH GUPTA Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is by one Jagannath Gupta who was convicted Under Section 411, Penal Code and sentented to one year's rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kanpur.

(2.) A theft was committed at the house of one Ganga Ram on the night between nth and 12th June 1947. The prosecution case is that the gold necklace, Ex. 1, is one of the items of property which was stolen during that theft. The police received information from one Rup Narain that the stolen necklace was in the possession of applicant Jagannath Gupta. The police party accompanied with Rup Narain and a First Class Magistrate, Mr. Shah Aziz Ahmad, went to the house of Jagannath Gupta. According to the prosecution case, the Sub-Inspector and Rup Narain both asked the applicant Jagannath Gupta to bring out the necklace which was given to him as his share of the theft. Jagannath Gupta hesitated for some time but when the Sub-Inspector threatened that he would make a search of the house Jagannath Gupta went inside, brought out the necklace and handed it over to the police. This fact has been taken into account by the Courts below in arriving at the finding that Jagannath Gupta bad retained the stolen property with the knowledge that it was stolen property.

(3.) Mr. Shah Aziz Ahmad, the Magistrate who accompanied the raiding party, came into the witness box and deposed to what had happened at the time when the necklace was demanded from Jagannath Gupta and was handed over by him. The lower appellate Court has found upon evidence that the necklace, Ex. 1, is the necklace that was stolen from the house of Ganga Ram and has also found that it was retained by the applicant Jagannath Gupta with the knowledge that it was stolen property. The lower appellate Court has also disbelieved the story put forward by the applicant that the necklace was his own having been in the use of his wife. It is obvious that in arriving at this finding about the guilty knowledge of the applicant the Courts below have placed great reliance on the statement of Mr. Shah Aziz Ahmad.