At the time of the search the appellant who happens to be a trade union official, was number in Bulandshahr but was away on leave at Delhi in companynection with a postal companyference.
The articles were number listed at the spot but were taken to the Kotwali in a sealed packet and later on listed there.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of all these offences.
The High Court held that the appellant had secreted the five registered letters in question and on this finding set aside his acquittal and companyvicted him in each of the three appeals for offences under s. 52 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in each case.
467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that when the house in which the appellant lives along with his father Diwan Singh, a retired Police Head Constable, was searched by the C.I.D. Inspector, S. N. Singh, along with Masood Murtaza, Sub Inspector of Police, Bulandshahr on May 12, 1956 in companynection with a case against Greenwood Publicity, they accidentally discovered a large number of letters and postcards and also the five registered letters in question.
The appellant has companye up to this Court by special leave.
In all these trials, the appellant, who was a postman attached to the Bulandshahr post office was tried for offences under s. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 VI of 1898 , and in two of them, also for offences under ss.
Briefly stated the allegations against the appellant were that he either stole or secreted five registered letters and that he fabricated three receipts showing that the registered letters were received by the addressees.
The State then preferred an appeal against his acquittal in these three cases to the High Court of Allahabad but restricted the appeal to the acquittal of the appellant in respect of offences under s. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 hereafter referred to as the Act .
There articles were found in an almirah, the key of which was produced by the appellants father.
A number of other articles were also seized at that time but we are number companycerned with them as they have numberconnection with the charges against the appellant.
