RADHAKISHAN versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 27-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Tulsi Ram 
.,, 
Stai. of U. P. 
Mudholkar7 J. 
1962 
S1ptunber, 27. 
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 re-
covered 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 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
409 
that he had secreter! them. As the key was produced by the 
1962 
appellant's father it could not b~ infeITed that the appella~t 
&dhakitlm 
\vas in joint possession of the alm1rah much less that he was in 
v. 
exclusive possession of it. No inference could be drawn from 
Stall of U. P. 
the fact that the almirah contained certain other articles belong-
ing 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 
Mudholkar, J. 
of three separate trials before the Additional Sessions 
Judge, Bulandshahr, but were argued together as they 
arise identical questions. 
In all these trials, the ap-
pellant, who was a postman attached to the Buland-
shahr 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 
1962 
Radhakishan 
•• 
State of U. P. 
Mudholkar, J. 
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP. 
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 Pol

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.