LexPYARE LAL BHARGAVA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 689 PYARE LAL BHARGAVA v. ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN (H.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Law--Thtft-Temporary deprivation of property, if wrongful loss-Retracted confession-EviJ.entary value- Oorroboration-Rule of practict-Irulian Penal OoJ.e, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 37~, 379-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), 88, 3, 24. The appellant was convicted under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer's office and got a file removed from the Secretariat through a clerk took it home and made it available to his friend, the co-ac~used, who removed certain documents by substituting others. The appellant returned the file to the office the next day. He made a confession when th( Chief Engineer threatened that if he did not disclose the truth the matter would be placed in the hands of the Police. That confession was later retracted. The three courts below were of the opinion that the statement of the Chief Engineer did not amount to a threat in the cir· cumstances of the case. Htld, that s. 24 of the evidence Act waives the stringent rule of proof as laid down by s. 3 of the Act and requires the court to form a prima facie opinion on the evidence and circumstances of the particular case whether a confession should or should not be excluded as being involuntary. It is not possible to lay down any inflexible standard and the Supreme Court acting under Art. 136 of the Constitution would not ordinarily differ from the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below. A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a con- viction if the court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made. As a general rule of practice, however, it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession was true, voluntarily made and corroborated in material particulars. In the present case there could be no doubt that the necessary ingredients constituting·the offence of theft were made out. Octob1r 22. 1962 Pp.ra Lal BhargaVll v. Slat1 of Rajosthan 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. To constitute theft the loss caused need not be permanent Even temporary dispossession, though the person taking the property intended to restore it, may constitute theft. Illustra- tions (b) and (1) of s. 373 of the Indian Penal Code clearly show that a temporary deprivation of another person of his property may cause wrongful loss to him. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 25, 1953 of the Raja~than High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 237 of 1956. S. P. Varma, for the appellant. S. K. Kapur and P. D. Jlfenon, for the respon· dent. 1962. October 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by s.u. R••, J. SuBBA RAo, J. -This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision No. 237 of 1956 confirming that of the Sessions Judge, Al war, convict- ing the appellant under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing hiqi. to a fine of Rs. 200/-. To appreciate the questions raised in this appeal the following facts, either admitted or found by the High Court, may be stated. On November 24, 1945, one Ram Kumar Ram obtained permission, Ex. PB, from the Government of the former Alwar State to supply electricity at Rajgarh, Khertal and Kherli. Thereafter, he entered into partnership with 4 others with an understanding that the licence would be transferred to a company that would be floated by the said pa,rtners~ip.. After the company was formed, it put in an apphcat10n to the Government through 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 691 its managing agents for the issue of a licence in its favour. Ex. P. W. 15/B is that application. On the advice given by the Government Advocate, the Government required Ram Kumar Ram to file a declaration attested by a Magistrate with regard to the transfer of his rights and the licence to the com - pany. On April 8, 1948, Ram Kumar Ram filed a declaration to that effect. The case of the prosecution is that Ram Kumar Ram was a friend of the appel- lant. Pyarelal Bhargava, who was a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer's Office, Alwar. At the instance of Ram Kumar Ram, Pyarelal Bharga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.