Skip to content


Suresh Chandra De Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Cal782
AppellantSuresh Chandra De
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- order1. this rule is directed against an order of remand made by the learned additional sessions judge of mymensingh. the petitioner before us was convicted by a magistrate under section 381, i.p.c. the evidence against him was purely circumstantial and on appeal before the learned additional sessions judge the latter pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence as to whether the appellant had any access to a certain seal of a railway station. the importance of that point was that the appellant had been convicted of stealing the contents of a leather bag from the station safe. this bag was sealed by the appellant before it was placed in the safe by the station master, and the seal remained intact until the bag reached the head office of the railway. when it was broken there, the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This rule is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh. The petitioner before us was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 381, I.P.C. The evidence against him was purely circumstantial and on appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the latter pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence as to whether the appellant had any access to a certain seal of a railway station. The importance of that point was that the appellant had been convicted of stealing the contents of a leather bag from the station safe. This bag was sealed by the appellant before it was placed in the safe by the station master, and the seal remained intact until the bag reached the head office of the Railway. When it was broken there, the contents of the bag were found to have vanished. As the learned Judge pointed out, the question whether the appellant had access to the station seal is absolutely material for the decision of the charge against him, and as there was no evidence whatever on this point, it should have followed that the learned Judge in accordance with this finding acquitted the appellant. Instead of doing so he set aside the conviction and the sentence and remanded the case for further evidence on the question of the appellant's access to the seal. In our opinion this order cannot, be supported. As the case originally made out against the appellant had failed through the absence of sufficient evidence, the appellant should have been acquitted, and no order of remand for the purpose of allowing the prosecution to supply deficiencies in their original case should have been passed. This rule is accordingly made absolute, the order of remand is set aside and the order setting aside the conviction of and sentence passed on the petitioner is affirmed. The petitioner will be released from bail.


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