1962 (9) TMI 61 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an offence under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, was made out.
2. Whether the five registered letters were in the exclusive possession of the appellant.
3. Legality of the search under Sections 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Compliance with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the examination of the appellant.
5. Whether there were compelling reasons for setting aside the appellant's acquittal.
6. Whether the total sentence was excessive due to the consecutive nature of the sentences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Offence under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act:
The appellant was accused of secreting five registered letters and fabricating receipts to show their delivery. Section 52 penalizes theft, dishonest misappropriation, secretion, destruction, or throwing away of postal articles by a postal officer. The prosecution argued that the letters found in the appellant's house were secreted by him. The court noted that "to secrete means, according to the dictionary, 'to hide'," and retaining postal articles for an inordinate time constitutes secreting. The court held that the appellant's possession of the letters for a long period justified the inference of secreting, even without proving entrustment.

2. Exclusive Possession of the Letters:
The prosecution needed to establish that the letters were in the appellant's exclusive possession. The letters were found in an almirah in the house shared by the appellant and his father, with the key produced by the father. The High Court inferred exclusive possession based on the appellant's opportunity to access postal articles and the presence of other articles belonging to him in the almirah. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning speculative, noting that the almirah contained many items belonging to the father, and the key was with him. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession by the appellant.

3. Legality of the Search:
The appellant argued that the search was illegal under Sections 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that even if the search was illegal, it did not vitiate the seizure of the articles. The High Court accepted the prosecution's evidence regarding the seizure, and the Supreme Court declined to re-examine this factual determination.

4. Compliance with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellant contended that the Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with Section 342 requirements during his examination. The court noted that no grievance was raised before the lower courts about this issue, and it could not be raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The question of prejudice is factual and cannot be agitated at this stage.

5. Setting Aside Acquittal:
The appellant argued that the High Court did not find compelling reasons to set aside his acquittal. The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal from acquittal need not be treated differently from an appeal from conviction. If the High Court finds the acquittal unjustified by the evidence, it can set it aside without needing compelling reasons.

6. Excessive Sentence:
The appellant contended that consecutive sentences in the three cases were excessive. The court noted that the maximum sentence under Section 52 is seven years, and ordering the sentences to run consecutively did not constitute severe punishment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the exclusive possession of the letters by the appellant, and no presumption of secreting could be drawn from their presence in the almirah, which was not in the appellant's exclusive possession. The appeals were allowed, and the appellant's conviction and sentences were set aside.