The Sen Raleigh cycle had been pledged by Siddique with him and that is how the said cycle was recovered from his possession.
Siddique.
Siddique was companyvicted and sentenced but he did number file any appeal.
DA which was scribed by one Baldev Pandit and had been attested by some witnesses.
The appellant does number appear to have produced any evidence about the pledging of the other cycles which were found in his possession number did he point to any other article apart from the cycles which had been pledged with him in the companyrse of his business when the, search was made of his house by the S.H.O. A.D. N. Sinha.
He made, a statement to the police officer which led him to search the premises of the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Even if it be assumed that this evidence was number admissible according to the charge as framed with regard to two cycles the same had been recovered from the place of the appellant which had been admitted by Siddique as having been stolen by him.
A had been scribed in his presence and that Rs.
D.W. I Ramjit Sao a neighbour deposed that the document Exh.
The explanation given by the appellant was that three out of the 10 cycles belonged to the members of his family and the other seven had been pledged with him as he carried on the business of a pawn broker.
It was number disputed before the High Court that the Sen Raleigh.
The Investigating Officer had deposed to the fact that after the recovery of 10 cycles he made a verification from the records of the Police station and found that besides the Sen Raleigh cycle cases had been instituted earlier with respect to four more cycles out of the recovered cycles.
The alleged thief was apprehended and the cycle in his possession was taken into custody.
According to Shyam Narain Singh he had seen ornaments and utensils being taken on pledge by the appellant and members of his family although he had number seen him taking any cycle on pledge.
Neither the scribe number Mahabir Sao or Nanden who were the attesting witnesses gave evidence.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
It was further stated by them that the appellant and his brothers worked as companytractors and they also took things on pawn and advanced money.
The appellant also produced a document Exh.
The name of that person was Mohnd.
67 of 1968.
As a result of the search seven cycles including the Sen Raleigh cycle belonging to Sheo Charan Lal which was stolen on March 24, 1965 and three other cycles were recovered from the house of the appellant, Mohd, Siddique and the appellant were tried, the former under s. 379 and the latter under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis, for the appellant.
P. Jha, for the respondent.
It appears that on May 11, 1965 the Station House Officer, Incharge Giridih Police Station A.D.N, Sinha learnt while he was moving about in the town on the Moharram day that a thief was running away with a Sycle.
There companyld be numberdoubt that at least two of the 10 cycles recovered from the possession of the appellant were stolen properties.
It was also proved that that cycle was stolen.
cycle was recovered along with nine other cycles as a result of the search of the house of the appellant by D.N. Sinha the S.H.O. on May 11, 1965.
He reported the matter to the Police on March 25, 1965.
407 of 1966.
According to the case of the prosecution a Sen Raleigh cycle was stolen from the possession of Sheo Charan Lal.
In this document it was stand that Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Patna High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code for which a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment was imposed.
80 bad been received by Siddique by way of advance from the appellant and that the cycle in question had been pledged with the latter.
Siddique had pawned the cycle by way of security for the advance.
80/ had been paid to Siddique.
P.W. I Jayantilal and P.W. 2 Shyam Narain, Singh deposed that the appellant as well as his brothers and other members of his family lived in the same house.
