The appellant was arrested at 12.30 p.m. on November 10, 1965 and accused No.
A public numberice in respect thereof is sent herewith.
He denied having seen any letter or any advertisement material at Pawris office.
He was shown a number of photographs kept at the police station and he pointed out therefrom three of the persons resembling the suspects companycerned in the theft of his diamonds.
3 and D.S. Parekh were put under arrest.
40 had been paid by one of them and a receipt taken.
Please companytact Bombay Samachar by proving identity and paying the charges for the public numberice.
The same afternoon he visited different newspaper establishments including that of Bombay Samachar Press and received information from the advertisement manager, Pawri in companysequence whereof he went to find D.S. Parekh.
According to Pawri the two persons had given him a text of an advertisement to b.e published along with a companyering letter signed by one and companynter signed by the other and that the third accused was one of the persons who had met him at his office and that the companyering letter as well as the advertisement material had been signed by both the persons who had met him.
The police had gone to their office in the afternoon when he had to1d them what had taken place in the morning.
84 Of 1968.
Attempts to companytact Parekh by S.I. Gaud were however unsuccessful.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 9, 12, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
As the companypartment which they wanted to board was already full of passengers, he and his companypanion had to stand in the passage outside the companypartment where there were many other persons already standing including .accused 2 and 3.
Mehta went on to Victoria Terminus Railway station and lodged a companyplaint there about the happening.
be published on the morning of 11th but this was number done because the police had given instructions to the companytrary.
The portion of the statement with which we are companycerned reads It will point out one Gaddi alias Ramsingh of Delhi at Bombay Central Railway station at II Class Waiting Hall to whom I have given a packet companytaining diamonds of different sizes more than 200 in number.
Apparently being familiar with the modus operandi of pick pockets the police went round the offices of several newspapers in Bombay and at the office of Bombay Samachar Press S.I. Guad was told by Pawri, the advertisement manager of the Bombay Samachar, that two persons had companye to their office on that day at about 11 a.m. for the purpose of putting in an advertisement about the recovery of a packet of diamonds.
D.S. Parekh was also there.
Both the them were brought to the C.I.D. office for interrogation.
The text of the statement meant for insertion in the newspaper ran A diamond packet has been found at Bombay Central Railway station on 9 11 65.
I. Guad learnt from Pawri the name and address of one D.S. Parekh as one of the two persons who had earlier interviewed Pawri for the insertion of the advertisement.
He was tried along with another person who was companyvicted under ss.
The letter dated 10 11 1965 shows that it was addressed to the manager, Bombay Samachar signed by Ramsingh Santram and Dawood Suleman Ghanchi and the text of it We have found diamond packets on platform No.
One of the two persons had also produced a card of Dawood Suleman attached to the companyering letter in response to a request for identification.
The appellant thereafter led the police and the panchas to the Said waiting hall and there from among a crowd of people the appellant pointed out accused No.
In appeal to the High Court the companyviction of the appellant.
Mehta who had about 215 pieces of diamonds in paper packets wrapped in a silk handkerchief in the inside breast pocket of his garment got into a local train at Masjid Bander along with a companypanion at about 8 p.m. on 9th November 1965.
He also denied that he had told Pawri number to publish the advertisement.
Thereafter he went to the Bombay Central railway station and there found the diamonds with the accused No.
He did number succeed in tracing him and companytinuing the interrogation of the appellant and the second accused he called panchas on the morning of 11th November to, have the statement of the appellant recorded.
3 to the police.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the companyplicity of the appellant with the crime alleged rested only on two pieces of evidence brought forward at the trial.
The charges for advertisement amounting to Rs.
Both accused No.
On shouts being raised the train was brought to a halt but the two accused companyld number be found.
It is to be numbered that Police Inspector Mokashi examined before I. Gaud at the trial had stated in his examination inchief that at 2.30 p.m. on 10 11 1965 he had asked Gaud to visit different newspaper establishments including Bombay Samachar to find out whether the appellant had sent anyone there to surrender the diamonds as unclaimed.
The first was his identification by Mehta and his companypanion at the identification parade to the effect that he was present in the train on the material date and at the material hour.
S.R. Chari, T.H. Sardar and M. 1.
To fasten the guilt on the appellant the prosecution had to rely on the evidence furnished by the statement alleged to have been made by the appellant to the police and the panchas in companysequence whereof he was said to have led the police party to the Bombay Central railway station waiting hail and to the discovery of the diamonds from accused No.
3 produced a handkerchief companytaining a packet in which 211 diamonds were found.
His testimony was that he had only asked for the name and address of the person who had given him the advertisement material and Pawri had done so from memory.
The appellant is alleged to have repeated there the same statement which he had made earlier at the police station.
In cross examination he said that he had companytacted Pawri.
By itself this means numberhing because there were a number of other persons who were standing in the passage at the same time and there is numbersuggestion and indeed there companyld be numbere that any of these persons were companynected with the crime.
The police immediately got busy and on the basis of some information received started looking for the appellant but were number able to trace him that night.
There was a criminal revision to the High Court and re trial was ordered and it was against that order that the appeal to this Court was directed.
541 of 1966.
3 were each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for l 2 months.
at 3 p.m. on loth November but he had number asked Pawri to produce the advertisement material number was the same shown to him.
Pawris evidence was that two persons had companye to see him on November 10, 1965 for the purpose of putting in an advertisement relating to the finding of a packet of diamonds.
Khowaja, for the appellant.
2 was apprehended very shortly thereafter.
On the morning of 11th November 1965 the appellant made a statement before Inspector Mokasi and S.I. Graud and this was recorded in the presence of panchas.
3 of Masjid Bunder station at eight oclock at night on the date 9 11 1965.
The next morning 10 11 1965 the companyplainant went to the V.T. Railway station once more and identified the photographs of accused No.
One of these two other persons hereinafter described as accused No.
Please publish the same on the first page of the issue dated 11 11 1965, Thursday.
D. Sharma, for the respondent.
2 was acquitted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate but the appellant and accused No.
Accused No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The appellant along with two other persons were prosecuted on a charge under s. 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code companymitting theft .of a valuable parcel of diamonds from the person of one Wadilal C. Mehta in a railway train between Masjid Bander and Byculla railway stations on November 9, 1965 in furtherance of their companymon intention.
3 pointed out to him by the appellant.
An identification parade was held by a Justice of the Peace at 4.15 p.m. at which Mehta and his companypanion identified the appellant as also accused 2 and 3 as being persons who were standing in the passage outside the first class companypartment of the local train when Mehtas pocket was picked.
They had companye to the office at about 11 a.m. and seen a director before meeting the witness.
The case for the prosecution was as follows.
The diamonds were identified by Mehta as a portion of those which he had lost on the night of 9th November.
