The appellant took the matter on revision before the Patna High Court but the same was dismissed in limine.
Thereafter the bag of the accused was searched and from it a mirror bearing the mark IR was recovered.
As soon as the train reached Manoharpur station Venkateswaram.
On these facts the police registered a case under Sections 379/411, Indian Penal Code.
What have you to say?
along with P. Y. Kundulu, Head Rakshak and D. Bhas kar Rao, went into the adjoining bogey and found the accused alone there.
The third and the last question related to the first information report which does number companycern us.
P.C. Q. 1 It is stated that on 6 9 67 ?
Q. 2 It is stated that the abovesaid mirror recovered from you on the abovesaid date was broken by you.
What have you to say?
P.C. does number necessarily vitiate the trial.
But in the trial companyrt the charges were companyfined to Section 411.
7 1 67 at about 6 1/4 p.m. at Manoharpur railway station a mirror was discovered from you in the third class companypartment in 328 Down Nagpur Chakradharpur.
On inspection of the bogey they detected that the mirror of its latrine had been taken out.
CrPC have number been fully companyplied with.
The original question reads Kaha jatahai ki ta Tarikh 7 1 67 ke karib save 6 baje sandhya Manohar pur railway station main 328 down Nagpur Chakradharpur train ke third class companypartment main ap ke pas se railway ka ek aina baramad hua tha.
According to the prosecution case on January 7, 1967 Shri K. K. Venkateswaram, Sub Inspector of Railway Police Force Chakradharpur, along with others, was companying to Chakradharpur in a third class bogey of 328 Down Nagpur Chakradharpur Passenger train.
The trial companyrt put the following two questions to the accused under Section 342.
Ap ko kya kahana hai?
D. Dua, J. The only point raised on behalf of the appellant by his learned Counsel Shri A. K. Nag is based on the argument that the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code were number companyplied with by the trial companyrt.
The appellant was charged under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Railway Stores Unlawful Possession Act, 195.
On appeal the learned addi tional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibassa affirmed the order of the trial companyrt.
They heard some knocking sounds emanating from the adjoining bogey when the train was between Jaraikela and Manoharpur railway stations.
They questioned the accused about the missing mirror but he denied all knowledge about it.
The trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant under both the sections and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each companynt, the sentences to run companycurrently.
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores Unlawful Possession Act.
