- (1.) HARI Kishan, aged 33 years, a resident of Adarsh Nagar, Delhi is the petitioner before me. He was convicted on the 14th of April. 1972. by Shri D. R. Goel, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal. of an offence under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being found on the 26th of October. 1970. in unlawful possession of 20 kilograms of "telegraph wire" without any valid authority and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. An appeal filed by him against the judgment of the leiarned Magistrate was dismissed on the 21st of June. 1972. by Shri N. R. Rao. Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, and that is why he has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) THE telegraph wire in question was said to have been recovered in con-sequence of a statement made by the petitioner in response to interrogation while in police custody on the 26th of October, 1970.
(3.) THE procedure adopted at the trial and culminating in the conviction of the petitioner may well be examined at this stage. The proceedings were initiated by means of complaint Exhibit P. A. /2 which is dated the 4th of April, 1971 and bears the signature of the Station House Officer of Butana Police Station in District Karnal. On the 1st of June. 1971. the trial Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty whereafter the case was adjourned for evidence to be produced by the prosecution. Six prosecution witnesses were examined in between then and the 11th of January. 1972. and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine them. On the date last mentioned the petitioner made a statement to the effect that the case property was "telephone copper wire". The following statement of the prosecuting Sub-Inspector representing the State was then recorded: In view of the statement of the accused I tender in evidence affidavits of Constables Nanak Chand and Telu Ram Exhibits P. H. and P. J. and close my case. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that the wire alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner was wire of any particular gauge. The statement of the petitioner was then recorded in pursuance of the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One of the questions put to him was: Q. 3. It is further in evidence against you that the recovered wire he-longs to Telegraph Department. What do you say?" His answer was: I do not know. The case was then adjourned for evidence to be produced by the petitioner on whose behalf three witnesses were examined on the 4th of March, 1972, when he closed his case. The learned Magistrate then heard arguments and pronounced judgment in the case. ;