Skip to content


The Empress of India Vs. Rameshar Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All379
AppellantThe Empress of India
RespondentRameshar Rai
Excerpt:
.....sections 192, 193, and 414 - fabricating false evidence--voluntarily assisting in concealing stolen property--act x of 1872 (criminal proceedure code), section 297--separate offences. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed..........or disposing of or making away with this property which he knew, or had reason to believe, to be stolen property, and he was punished for this offence. he also is found to have concealed the property in the field of one sedari, an enemy of his own, with a view that it might be found in his (sedan's) house and field, and that he might be apprehended and charged with the theft. there is also a strong presumption that he instigated one bhagi to conceal pins in sedan's house. it is argued that if the disposal of the property was committed with the object of placing it, or causing to be placed, in sedan's field to bring him into trouble, one offence only and not two distinct offences were committed. but i cannot accept this view of the case. it may be that the magistrate was of opinion that.....
Judgment:

Spankie, J.

1. It is admitted that the pins were stolen property. It was brought home to the prisoner, Rameshar Rai, that he had voluntarily assisted in concealing, or disposing of or making away with this property which he knew, or had reason to believe, to be stolen property, and he was punished for this offence. He also is found to have concealed the property in the field of one Sedari, an enemy of his own, with a view that it might be found in his (Sedan's) house and field, and that he might be apprehended and charged with the theft. There is also a strong presumption that he instigated one Bhagi to conceal pins in Sedan's house. It is argued that if the disposal of the property was committed with the object of placing it, or causing to be placed, in Sedan's field to bring him into trouble, one offence only and not two distinct offences were committed. But I cannot accept this view of the case. It may be that the Magistrate was of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the offence fell under Section 411, viz., that there was a dishonest receiving of stolen property within the meaning of the word 'dishonesty'* as defined in the Penal Code. He therefore applied Section 414. In the commission of an offence under this section, it is sufficient that the accused be proved to have voluntarily assisted in concealing, disposing of, or making away, with property, which he knew, or had reason to believe, was stolen property. The fact that he did so, convicts him of an offence against property under chapter xvii of the Penal Code. He may then, or at the time, have entertained the idea that by placing it where he did, he would cause evidence to be found whereby he hoped that Sedari might be convicted of the theft of the property so concealed by him. But he nevertheless committed an offence under Section 414 of the Code against the property. Also he fulfilled the condition of the offence as defined in that section. It did not matter where he concealed it. He should not have concealed it at all, or caused it to be concealed voluntarily, either in Sedan's house or land, or elsewhere, if lie knew or had reason to believe that it was stolen property.

2. In concealing it as lie did in Sedan's field, with the intention found by the Magistrate, the prisoner committed another and distinct offence against public justice under chapter xi of the Penal Code, as he intentionally fabricated false evidence to be used in a judicial proceeding. He was punished under Section 193. The offence possibly was one more nearly coming under Section 195 of the Penal Code. There could be no doubt that in hiding the pins in Sedan's field intending that they might be found and that the circumstance of their being found in Sedan's field might appear in a judicial proceeding, and that this circumstance might lead the Magistrate to believe that lie, Sedari, had been connected with the theft, under Section 192 would be and is fabricating false evidence, and is a distinct offence from the offence of voluntarily assisting in disposing of the stolen property. I see no reason to interfere, and dismiss the petition.

-----------------------------------Foot Note-------------------------------------

* Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //