STATE GOVT Vs. CHHOTELAL MOHANLAL
LAWS(BOM)-1954-5-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on May 11,1954

STATE GOVT. Appellant
VERSUS
CHHOTELAL MOHANLAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

'KUDAON V. EMPEROR' [REFERRED TO]
'EMPEROR V. YESHABA' [REFERRED TO]
'PUTTU V. EMPEROR' [REFERRED TO]
'ABDUL KADAR V. EMPEROR' [REFERRED TO]
POSHAKI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MANGALYA RAGHO MAHAR VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of criminal revisions Nos. 544 and 545 of 1953.
(2.)THIS appeal and the two revisions arise out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Nimar, delivered on 31-7-1953. The facts relevant for purposes of this appeal and the revisions are as under : Prosecution case is that on 28-7-1951 Krishna-deo as guard and brakesman Gorelal started by the down goods train 565 at 19. 00 hours from Bhusawal to Khandwa. On the engine of the same train, driver D. V. Duncan was on duty with, his staff of Trimbak 'agwala' and fireman George Rommen. Accused Gerald Manning also got un-authorizedly on the engine of the same train and came to Burhanpur. The train remained at Burhanpur railway station from 20. 15 hours to 02. 30 hours. During this interval, all the accused persons collected at Burhanpur railway station and held a common consultation and broke the seal and the revetting of the wagon No. GIP 5018 in Burhanpur yard and even before the train started accused Manning, Sheman (absconding) and Chhotelal got in that wagon and at mile No. 313, between posts Nos. 4 to 9, dropped five bales of cotton cloth. Accused Duncan, the driver, slowed down the train during this interval in order to enable them to commit the crime. Afterwards, accused Manning came to the city and recovered Rs. 400 from Mangilal. Later on, accused persons Chhotelal and Heerachand hid the stolen property in the bushes near the rivulet in the jungle. During the course of investigation these two accused persons admitted the offence as per memorandum of admission and got the stolen property duly recovered in hidden condition as per seizure memo in the presence of the witnesses. On full investigation an offence Under Section 379, Penal Code, is proved against the accused persons.
(3.)IN the trial Court accused Duncan, Manning, Chhotelal, Heerachand and Mangilal were challanged. It was stated that accused Sheman was absconding. Accused Mangilal was discharged. Charges Under Section 379, Penal Code, were framed against all the four accused. They pleaded not guilty. The trial Court held that accused Manning, Chhotelal and Ileerachand were guilty of an offence Under Section 379, Penal Code, and accused Duncan was guilty of abetting an offence of theft Under Section 379/109, Penal Code. All the four accused persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. All of them filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Nimar.


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