Ravinder Singh alias Billa vs State, Chandigarh Administration

M.L. Singhal, J.

Prosecution case in brief is that on the night intervening 6/7/3.1992 Smt. Raj Rani had parked her white coloured Maruti Car No. CH01 7830, Engine No. 281842, Chassis No. 208770 in front of her Kothi No. 3287, Sector 27D, Chandigarh. In the morning at about 7.00 AM she found the said car to have been stolen from there. Smt Raj Rani made report in writing to the police, on the basis of which formal FIR No. 61 dated 7.3.1992 was registered under Sections 379/411/475 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh at about 12.20 PM.

On 15.3.1992 ASI Pargat Singh together with some other Police officials and one Devinder Kumar was present near the roundabout of Sectors 19, 20, 27 and 30 where he received secret information that Balwinder Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Ravinder Singh were coming in a Maruti car bearing a fake number plate and they would be passing by that roundabout and the said car was stolen car. Thereupon, Pargat Singh sent for the police file of case FIR No. 61 dated 7.3.1992 ibid. After some time Balwinder Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Ravinder Singh happened to come there in Maruti car. bearing fake number plate HP15 8667. ASI Pargat Singh verified the chassis number and engine number of that car which tallied with the chassis number and engine number of the car which was the subject matter of the aforesaid FIR. ASI Pargat Singh took that car into possession. Their person was searched. In regard to their personal search separate memos were prepared. Visual site plan was prepared with regard to the place of recovery of the car. They were arrested and brought to the Police Post Sector 19, Chandigarh. On 18.3.1992 Smt. Raj Rani was summoned and she identified the said car as belonging to her. She handed over to the Investigating Officer the registration certificate of the car No. CH017830. ASI Pargat Singh learnt from the Registering Authority Parwanoo that no registration certificate bearing No. HP158667 had been issued to any car. Initially the case had been registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On the certificate of Registering Authority, Parwanoo that it was a fake number, offence under Section 475 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After investigation accused was challaned.

Accused were charged by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh under Sections 411 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 11.3.1993. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate found the charge under Sections 411 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ each or in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 475 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved from this order dated 5.3.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate, Ravinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh went in appeal to the Court of Session separately.

Learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide a composite order dated 19.9.1998 accepted the appeals and set aside their conviction and sentence, recorded under Section 475 of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, maintained their conviction recorded under Section 411 of the Indian Panal Code but slashed the sentence to 9 months rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved from this order dated 19.9.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, all of them have come up in revision to this Court, whereby they have prayed that they be acquitted and the judgment of the learned Sessions, Chandigarh be set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that each of the petitioners could not be in possession of the car. Might be that one or the other was merely enjoying lift in the car but he could not be clothed with being in possession of the car. It was submitted that the car had allegedly been stolen 8/9 days earlier and how could it be said that they all were aware that it was a stolen car and their possession was the possession of a stolen car. It was submitted that according to ASI Pargat Singh, Ravinder Singh was found driving the car while others were just sitting. Suffice it to say, when car was not bearing genuine number plate, each of them had the knowledge that none of them was owner of that car. Registration No. HP158667 which this car was bearing had not been allotted to this car by the Registering Authority, Parwanoo. This fact fastens them with the knowledge that the car was a stolen property and that they were in possession either because they themselves had committed the theft of this car or they were receivers of the stolen property.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution case is not supported by any independent witness. It was submitted that when ASI Pargat Singh had received secret information that the car would be passing by the side of the roundabout, he should have joined some independent witness. Suffice it to say, car was intercepted by ASI Pargat Singh and HC Bahadur Singh etc. It was taken into possession believing the same to be stolen property. It was for the accused to explain how they came by this car when it did not belong to them. Engine number and Chassis number of this car tallied with the engine number and chassis number of the car belonging to Smt. Raj Rani, which had been stolen on the night intervening 6/7.3.1992 and therefore this car obviously belonged to Smt Raj Rani and had been stolen from her possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the car was allegedly recovered 8/9 days after it had been stolen and after a lapse of 8/9 days, no presumption could be raised that they were thieves or receivers of the stolen property. In support of this submission he drew my attention to Trimbak v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 and Emperor v. Santa Singh, AIR 1994 Lahore 339.

In AIR 1954 SC 39 (supra), it was observed by their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that "it is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under Section 411 I.P.C. to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property."

In AIR 1944 Lahore 339 it was held by the Lahore High Court that, "exclusive possession or control of any particular person over an incriminating article is not required under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and Section 5, Explosive Substances Act. The possession or control might well be possession or control of two or more persons. Every case must depend upon its particular facts and the Courts must consider each case and come to a conclusion whether it is proved that the incriminating article is in the possession or under the control of any particular person or in the possession or under the control of more than one person. If on the evidence the Court cannot hold possession or control by any person or persons, then the case is not established."

Suffice it to say, when they were in possession of this car and the chassis and engine numbers of this car tallied with the chassis and engine numbers of the car belonging to Smt. Raj Rani, it lay upon them to prove how they came by this car. "Whether they had borrowed this car from someone or whether they had purchased this car from someone bona fide."

In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge, justifiably convicted the petitioners. Appraisal of the evidence by the learned Magistrate is not attended by any infirmity or illegality. Similarly, reappraisal of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is not attended by any illegality or infirmity. In this view of the matter, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge has to be maintained and is accordingly maintained.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958/Sections 360361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been given to the petitioners. Suffice it to say, thefts of the car/scooters etc. are quite rampant these days. Such thefts can be easily committed. For commission of such thefts one has not to make a trespass into any house. Cars and scooters are sometimes parked in open in front of the houses. Theft of car/scooter has to be viewed seriously because this is peculiar to people belonging to the socalled higher strata of society. Theft of the car/scooter etc. is prompted by the desire to enrich themselves overnight. The benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Sections 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot thus be granted to the petitioners. Sentence imposed upon them is, however, slashed keeping in view that they have been facing the agony of this trial for the last about 6 years. During all these years, they remained afflicted with mental pain and agony. They remained undertrial before the learned Magistrate for 5 years. Eventually, they were convicted and sentenced. They tried their luck before the Court of Session. There also, they failed. Before the Court of Session, their fate hanged in the balance for about 11/2 years. Sentence imposed is brought down to 4 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

Subject to this reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed