Decided on May 09,1957



- (1.) THIS application under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arises out of facts and circumstances as below:
(2.) A firm of Ludhiana by the name of Roshan Lal-Des Raj is a dealer in yarn bales. It is owned by the two persons making up its name. On September 8, 1955, it sold 40 bales of yam to Genda ram. This Genda Bam gave the bales to Jaimal Singh, proprietor of Doaba Dyeing House at ludhiana, for dyeing. Jaimal Singh returned other bales except thirty-four and three-quarters bales. It appears that he sold those thirty-four and three-quarters bales to firm Roshan Lal-Des raj on September 13, 1955. When Genda Ram could not obtain back the bales from Jaimal singh and learnt of the disposal of the same by Jaimal. Singh to the firm Roshan Lal-Des Raj, he reported the matter to the police against all the three. The police recovered thirty-four bales of yarn from the shop of the firm Roshan Lal-Des Raj. All the three, namely Jaimal Singh, Roshan lal, and Des Raj, were then prosecuted, Jaimal Singh under Section 406 and Roshan Lal and Des raj under Section 411 of the Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate convicted the three of the offences of which they were charged and ordered delivery of the thirty-four bales to Genda Ram. On appeal the convictions of the three were affirmed, but the appellate Court said nothing about the delivery of the bales, which meant that it did not interfere with the order of the trial Court about the same. Jaimal Singh did not come in revision before this Court, but Roshan Lal and Des raj did so.
(3.) ON December 6, 1956, Kapur J. accepted the revision petition on their behalf and acquitted them observing -; "except that the goods were found in possession of the accused, and therefore a presumption arises under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other indication of the criminality of the accused. Their explanation is supported by two documents and a witness. It cannot be said in these circumstances that the explanation is not reasonable even though it may not be absolutely correct which a jury would accept as such. In, these circumstances the rule laid down by the House of Lords in Woohnington v. Director of public Prosecutions, 1935 A. C. 462, (A) applies. The rule is that if at the end of a case the jury are led to reasoriable doubt, whether the explanation given by the accused is acceptable or not the accused is entitled to acquittal. In my opinion the Prosecution have not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and it is that element of doubt which entitles the petitioners to acquittal. " the learned Judge acquitted Roshan Lal and Des Raj giving them the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time proceeding on a finding of fact that the bales of yarn recovered from their possession were the bales sold to them by Jaimal Singh who had misappropriated the very bale as having been given to him by Genda Ram for the purpose of dyeing. At the time the revision peti-tion was disposed of no question was raised on behalf of Roshan Lal and Des Raj for the return of the bales to them in consequence of their acquittal.;

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