RADHAKISHAN v. STATE OF U. P.
Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 408; 1962 INSC 276
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM , N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1962 INSC 276. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1962-09-27. RADHAKISHAN v. STATE OF U. P. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. Lachhimi Narain who was the lcarta of the family. We modify the sentences accordingly. Appeals partly allowed. RADHAKISHAN v. STATE OF U. P. (S. J. IMAM, N. RAJAGCPALA AYYANGAR and j. R. MUDHOLKAR, jj. ) Criminal Trial-Secreting of postal articles-Entrustment of article, if necessary ingredient of offence-Exclusive poss. JS· sion-Articles recovered from almirah--Accused and his fa. ther both living in house-Key Produced by father-Whether accused in exclusive possession-The Post Offices Act, 1898 (VI of 1898), s. 52. The appellant, a postman, and his father were living in the same house. Certain undelivered postal articles were recovered from an almirah in the house, the key of which was produced by the father. The appellant was tried and convicted of an ofTcnce under s. 52 Po,t Offices Act for secreting postal articles. The appellant contended that since it had not bcrn proved that he had been entrusted with these articles the offence under s.
52 was not made out and that he could not be held guilty of secreting as he was not in exclusive possession of these articles. lleld, that entrustmcnt was not an essential ingredient of the ofTcnce under s. 52. Where the legislature intended to make cntrustn1ent an ingredient of the offence it had used appropriate \\'ords to n1akc it clear. It had used no such words ins. 52. 1'o secrete means to hide. In a case like the present, the re-tention of an undelivered postal article in an almirah for an inordinately long period would be tantamount to hiding that article. Held. , further, that •he appellant was not in exclusive possession of the postal articles and no inference could be drawn that he had secreter! them. As the key was produced by the appellant's father it could not b~ infeITed that the appella~t \vas in joint possession of the alm1rah much less that he was in exclusive possession of it.
No inference could be drawn from the fact that the almirah contained certain other articles belonging to the appellant as it also contained a large number of articles belonging to the father. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 160 to 162of1960. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and qrder dated January 20, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Government Appeals Nos. 20ll to 2013 of 1958. B. 0. 2Uisra and P. K. Ohakravarti, for the appellant. G. 0 .. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondtJnt. 1962. September 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MuDHOLKAR, . J. -Thcsc three appeals arise out of three separate trials before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, but were argued together as they arise identical questions. 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 lSDS) and in two of them, also for offences under ss. 4() 7 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the allegations against the appellant were that he either stole or secreted five registered letters and tlJat he fabricated three receipts showing that the registered letters were received by the addressees. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of all these offences. The State then preferred an appeal against his acquittal in these three cases to the High Court of Allahabad but restricted the 1ppcal to tl1e acquittal of the appellant in respect of offences under s. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The High Court held that the appellant had secreted the five registered letters in question and on this finding set aside his acquittal and convicted 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. The appellant has come up to this Court by special leave. Briefly stated the proseculion 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 l:l, 1956, in connection with a case against Messrs Greenwood Publicity, they acci-dentally discovered a large number of letters and postcards and also the five registered letters in question. At the time of the search the appellant who happens to be a trade union official, was not in Bulandshahr but was away on leave at Delhi in connection with a postal conference. These articles were found in an almirah, the key of which was produced by the appellant's father.
The articles were not listed at the spot but were taken to the Kotwali in a: scaled packet and later on listed there. A 1mm-ber of other articles were also seized at that time but we arc not concerned with them as thcv have no cbn-nection with the charges against the appellant. Bricflsy, the appellant's defence in all these cases is that there are two factions in the Bulandshahr post office and that these articles were planted by the opposite party. According to him, the planting must have occurred in the Kotwali when the Sub- Inspector purported to make a list of the articles seized from the house in which the appellant Jives. Further, according to him, neither the house nor the almirah from which the articles arc said to have been seized was in his exclusive possession.
He stated-and that fact is not denied-that the house which consists of two rooms only has been rented in his father's name, that both of them live in tl1osc two room~ and tl1at the almirah was i11 his fothcr"s possession inasmuch as the key was produec it had to find aftirmatively that the almirah was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. We ha vc not been able to discover any· thing_ in the jud~ment which directly bears on th\s quest10n. As the key was produced by the appellant s father and there is no evidence that it was ever with the appellant it would not be legitimate to infer that the almirah was even in the appellant's joint, much less in his exclusive, possession. The circumstance that the almirah contained, apart from the registered letters in question, certain other articles belonging to the :. ppellant cannGt sustain an inference that the almirah was in the appellant's possession exclusively or even jointly with his father.
We may recall that the almirah contained a large number of articles belonging to the father and since he had the key with him it must be he who must be deemed to be in possession of the almirah and consequently of its contents including the registered letters in question. Apart from that, out of the four reasons given by it, the last, as pointed out by the High Court itself, is a speculative reason and must, therefore, be left out of consideration. The second 'reason' is no reason at all because a very large number of articles found i1:1 the almirah admittedly belong to the father. The third reason that the father would not foist articles to incriminate the son and thus ruin his career assumes that had the father kept the articles he could have clone so only if he wanted to incriminate . the son.
We cannot understand why the father, 1f he happened to get possession of the articles fron: so~e source may not have kept them in the almirah m the same way in which he had kept the other articles belonging to him. That leaves, therefore, only the first reason. We doubt if on the basis of this reason alone the High Court could have held that though the locked almirah w:is not in the exclusive possession of. the appellant, these articles were in his exchisive possession, Jf the point to be established was whether the appellant had availed himself of the opportunity to procure the articles it could have been established by showing that he was in their exclusive possession.
But to say that he must be deemed to be in exclusive possession of these articles and not merely in their joint possession along with his father because he had the opportunity to get at the articles and then infer that he must have utilized the oppmtunity and was therefore in their exclusive possession would be arguing in a circle. Moreover since entrustment of the articles has not been established, the taking away of the articles by the appellant from the post office (if that is how he came by the articles) would be theft but it has not been found that he committed any theft. Indeed, had it been so found he could have been convicted under s. 52 without the Court having to consider whether he had secreted the articles. We may men-tion that Mr. l\1athur who appears for the State does not even suggest that the articles were stolen by the appellant.
Therefore, the contention that he had an opportunity to get at the articles loses all significance and can possibly have no bearing on the question as to the nature of possession attributable to the appellant. In the circurnstauces we must hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that these letters were in the exclusive possession of the appellant. No presumption can, therefore, be drawn against him that he had secreted them from the mere fact that they were found in the almirah which, at best, may be regarded as being in the joint possession of himself and his father. But, as already stated, even an inference of joint possession would not be legitimate. For these reasons we allow the three appeals and set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the appellant. Appeal all. ow&l.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.