Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

    Uploaded by

    Ridhima Bansal
    The appellant was charged under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act for possessing a stolen railway mirror. The trial court found the appellant guilty on both charges and sentenced him to six months imprisonment for each charge. The appellant argued on appeal that the trial court did not properly comply with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial court had adequately questioned the appellant under Section 342 by asking him about the recovery of the mirror from him, and his denial was sufficient without informing him the mirror was stolen. Failure to include every detail does not necessarily invalidate the trial or require a new trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

    Uploaded by

    Ridhima Bansal
    80 views4 pages
    The appellant was charged under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act for possessing a stolen railway mirror. The trial court found the appellant guilty on both charges and sentenced him to six months imprisonment for each charge. The appellant argued on appeal that the trial court did not properly comply with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial court had adequately questioned the appellant under Section 342 by asking him about the recovery of the mirror from him, and his denial was sufficient without informing him the mirror was stolen. Failure to include every detail does not necessarily invalidate the trial or require a new trial.

    Original Title

    Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V_s State of Bihar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant was charged under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act for possessing a stolen railway mirror. The trial court found the appellant guilty on both charges and sentenced him to six months imprisonment for each charge. The appellant argued on appeal that the trial court did not properly comply with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial court had adequately questioned the appellant under Section 342 by asking him about the recovery of the mirror from him, and his denial was sufficient without informing him the mirror was stolen. Failure to include every detail does not necessarily invalidate the trial or require a new trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    80 views4 pages

    Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

    Uploaded by

    Ridhima Bansal
    The appellant was charged under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act for possessing a stolen railway mirror. The trial court found the appellant guilty on both charges and sentenced him to six months imprisonment for each charge. The appellant argued on appeal that the trial court did not properly comply with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial court had adequately questioned the appellant under Section 342 by asking him about the recovery of the mirror from him, and his denial was sufficient without informing him the mirror was stolen. Failure to include every detail does not necessarily invalidate the trial or require a new trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Ajit Kumar Chaudhary v/s State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2058

    _________________________

    Submitted By:

    Priyesh Parthsarthy
    Batch: 2019-24
    Course: BBA LLB
    Division: A
    PRN: 19010224173
    Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

    Symbiosis International (Deemed University),

    Pune

    _____________

    In

    February, 2022

    Under the guidance of

    Mr. Vikram Singh

    Assistant Professor Course In Charge

    Law of Crimes IV- Criminal Procedure Code II


    Facts1:
    Secti0ns 411 0f the Indian Penal C0de and Secti0n 3 0f the Railway St0res (Unlawful
    P0ssessi0n) Act, 1955 were used t0 charge the appellant. 0n January 7, 1967, Shri K. K.
    Venkateswaram, Sub-Inspect0r 0f Railway P0lice F0rce, Chakradharpur, and 0thers were
    travelling t0 Chakradharpur 0n a third class b0gey 0f the 328 D0wn Nagpur-Chakradharpur
    Passenger train, acc0rding t0 the pr0secuti0n case. When the train was between Jaraikela and
    Man0harpur Railway Stati0ns, they n0ticed s0me kn0cking s0unds c0ming fr0m the next
    b0gey. Venkateswaram, P. Y. Kundulu, Head Rakshak, and D. Bhaskar Ra 0 went int0 the
    adj0ining b0gey as s00n as the train arrived at Man 0harpur Stati0n and f0und the accused
    al0ne. They disc0vered that the mirr0r fr0m the b0gey's lavat0ry had been rem0ved during
    their investigati0n. When they asked ab0ut the missing mirr0r, the accused denied any
    kn0wledge 0f it. F0ll0wing that, the accused's bag was checked, and a mirr 0r with the mark
    "IR" was disc0vered inside. The p0lice filed a c0mplaint under Secti0ns 379/411 0f the
    Indian Penal C0de based 0n these facts. H0wever, the accusati0ns were c0nfirmed in the
    Trial C0urt under Secti0n 411 0f the Indian Penal C0de and Secti0n 3 0f the Railway St0res
    (Unlawful P0ssessi0n) Act, 1955. The Trial C0urt f0und the appellant guilty under b0th
    pr0visi0ns and sentenced him t0 six m0nths in jail in each c0urt, with the sentences t0 run
    c0nsecutively.

    Issues:
    Whether the pr0visi0ns 0f Secti0n 342, Criminal Pr0cedure C0de were c0mpiled by the Trial
    C0urt?
    Whether it can be said that pr 0visi0ns 0f Secti0n 342 had n0t been c0mplied merely because
    it was n0t put t0 the appellant that the mirr0r was st0len?

    Rules:
    1. Section 3 of Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955
    Unlawful p0ssessi0n 0f railway st0res: If any pers0n is f0und, 0r is pr0ven t0 have
    been, in p0ssessi0n 0f any article 0f railway st0res reas0nably suspected 0f being
    st0len 0r 0btained unlawfully, and cann0t satisfact0rily explain h0w he 0btained it, he
    shall be punished by impris0nment f0r a term up t0 five years, 0r by fine, 0r by b0th.

    2. Section 411 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860


    Dish0nestly receiving st0len pr0perty: Wh0ever receives 0r retains st0len g00ds
    dish0nestly, kn0wing 0r having reas0n t0 suspect it is st0len pr0perty, is punishable
    by impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term up t0 three years, 0r by fine, 0r by

    1(1972) 2 SCC 451


    b0th.

    3. Section 379 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860


    Punishment f0r Theft: Theft is punishable by impris 0nment 0f either kind f0r a time
    up t0 three years, 0r by a fine, 0r by b0th.

    Analysis and Conclusion:


    The learned Additi0nal Sessi0ns Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibassa, upheld the trial c 0urt's
    decisi0n 0n appeal. The Appellant filed a revisi 0n petiti0n with the Patna High C 0urt, but it
    was dismissed in limine.The Appellant's primary 0bjecti0n, as previ0usly stated, is that the
    pr0visi0ns 0f Secti0n 342, C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure, have n0t been adequately f0ll0wed.
    Under Secti0n 342 0f the C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure, the trial c0urt asked the accused the
    f0ll0wing tw0 questi0ns:
    Questi0n 1: It is said that 0n September 6, 1967 (?) (7th January, 1967) at appr 0ximately 6-
    1/4 p.m. at Man0harpur railway stati0n, a mirr0r was disc0vered in the third class
    c0mpartment 0f the 328 D0wn Nagpur—Chakradharpur train. Questi0n 2: It is rep0rted that
    the appellant damaged the ab0ve-menti0ned mirr0r that was retrieved 0n the ab0ve-
    menti0ned date. The Appellant answered in negative t0 b0th questi0ns..
    The questi0n actually p0sed t0 the accused refers t0 the railway mirr0r that was rec0vered
    fr0m him.
    When c0nfr0nted with this f0rm 0f the inquiry, the Appellant's learned C 0unsel had virtually
    n0thing t0 say in supp0rt 0f his client's grievance. H0wever, it was argued half-heartedly that
    the charge that the mirr0r was st0len railway pr0perty sh0uld have been menti0ned in the
    questi0n asked t0 the accused, because this is an imp 0rtant ingredient f0r inv0king Secti0n
    411, IPC, and failure t0 d0 s0 has vitiated the trial and the c0nvicti0n. As a result, the c0urt
    c0uld n0t agree with the learned C0unsel.
    The facts 0f the case are straightf0rward and unc0mplicated. It is imp0ssible t0 argue that the
    Appellant's examinati0n under Secti0n 342, C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure was insufficient
    simply because the accused was n0t inf0rmed that the mirr0r had been taken. It is undeniably
    true that c0urts must ensure that the accused is given all relevant material circumstances
    appearing in evidence s0 that he can say whatever he wants in his defence in relati 0n t0 the
    pr0secuti0n case and explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him, but, as
    stated in Ram Shankar Singh v. State 0f West Bengal2, every err0r 0r 0missi0n in c0mplying
    with Secti0n 342, C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure d0es n0t necessitate a new trial. Interference
    0n this basis w0uld n0t be permissible unless there is an injustice as a result 0f an irregularity
    in c0mpliance with Secti0n 342. When the Appellant denied the rec 0very 0f a railway mirr0r
    in resp0nse t0 inquiry N0. 1, the C0urt's failure t0 include the fact that the mirr 0r was st0len
    cann0t be said t0 have caused him any prejudice 0r injustice. Given his resp 0nse t0 the first
    21962 SCJ 337
    questi0n, we believe it was p0intless t0 ask him any m0re questi0ns c0ncerning the mirr0r
    Ming had st0len—see Keki Bej0nji v. State 0f B0mbay3. In the circumstances 0f the case, the
    Appellant did n0t have a sufficient 0pp0rtunity t0 express what he intended t0 say ab0ut the
    pr0secuti0n against him.
    It is imp0ssible t0 argue that the accused's examinati0n under Secti0n 342, C0de 0f Criminal
    Pr0cedure, was insufficient simply because the article was n 0t accused 0f him. It is
    undeniably true that c0urts must take care t0 present 411 the relevant material circumstances
    appearing in evidence t0 the accused in 0rder f0r him t0 say what he wants in his defence in
    relati0n t0 the pr0secuti0n case and explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against
    him, but every err0r 0r 0missi0n in c0mplying with Secti0n 342, C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure
    d0es n0t necessarily v0id the trial. Interference 0n this basis w0uld n0t be permissible unless
    there is an unfairness as a result 0f a vi0lati0n 0f Secti0n 342. When the accused disputed the
    rec0very 0f the piece in resp0nse t0 a query, the C0urt's failure t0 menti0n the fact that the
    article was st0len cann0t be regarded t0 have caused him any prejudice 0r injustice.

    3(2961) 2 SCR 51

    You might also like