Decided on December 23,1957

STATE Appellant
DINA NATH Respondents


- (1.) THE question for consideration in this revision petition is whether one charge framed under section 411 of the Penal Code against Dina Nath accused, of which charge he has been convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on Tune 8, 1954, by a First Class magistrate of New Delhi, is a charge framed according to law. The facts are these: On September 9, 1953, sixty five articles were recovered from the accused. On September 20, 1953, a watch was recovered from his possession. The sixty six articles were found to concern six thefts, committed on six different occasions and in the houses of six different persons. There have been two recoveries of all the sixty six articles, one of sixty five articles, and the second of one article. The learned trial Magistrate charged the accused for one offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code in reference to all the sixty six articles and convicted and sentenced him as above.
(2.) THE accused went in appeal which was heard on July 22, 1954, by the additional Sessions judge of Delhi, who has set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and sent back the case for re-trial on the ground that the accused could not be charged at one trial, according to law, of receiving stolen property of six different thefts, committed on six different occasions and from the houses of six different persons, for it might well be that he received the stolen property of each theft on a different date. He is of the opinion that under section 234 of the Code of criminal Procedure only three offences of the same kind within a year may be charged together and in this case more than three offences have been charged together. It is the State that has come in revision against the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the State points out that there is no material on the record to show that, though the articles recovered relate to six different thefts, the receiving of the same took place on different dates, and relying on Jalal v. Emperor. AIR 1932 Lah 615 (1) he says that, in the circumstances of the case, the accused could only have been charged for one offence under section 411 of the Penal Code and he could not have been tried for six different offences under that section in six different cases. In reply on behalf of the accused the learned Counsel has argued that six thefts took place on different occasions and as there is no evidence that the receiving took place on one and the same date, inference must be that it was on different dates, in which case the charge framed by the trial magistrate cannot be sustained in law. He relies upon Hyder v. Emperor, 91 Ind Cas 64 : (AIR 1926 Sind 129),;

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