LexUDAI BHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
n.M..,.,.,.."'of
U. B. D#JI <lo Co.
v.
Wor4m.n oJ
U. ll. D"11 &> Co.
W-.OJ.
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
The Pat1U1 El.utrk Supply
Co.
Ltd. Patna
v.
Bali Rai ('). That Ctl8e in our opinion has no
applicu.tion to the facts of this case because that oaee
dealt with an application under 8. 33 of the Indus-
trial Di~putes Act while the present proceedings are
under s. IO of thfl Act and the considerations which
apply under s. 33 are different in many respects
from those which apply to an adjudication under
8. IO.
The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dis-
missed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
"CDAI BHAN
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(J. L. KAPL'R and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
c,-; m i11al J.a1»-Evi<l ence-Confeasion-lnf<>rmation reui-
t'ed fron, accu-<f.d-Accuaed producing alo/en artic/u--If amou"'8
to confe88ion-Admi•sibility of production-Indian Evid<n~
Act, 18i2 (1of1872), ""· 2.;, 26, 27-lndian Penal Code (Act
15 of JS'IO), ... 71,380,457.
On October 13, 1956, at about 8 p.m. the com)llainant
lorked !tis shop and went out for a while, but when he retur-.
ned he found the shop broken open and his box containing
money and clothes stolen.
On information given that the
appellant had been seen carrying the box from the direction
of the complainant's shop the appellant was arrested by the
sub-inspector of police and on being interrogated he produced
a box from out of a pond situate close to his field and handed
o\-.r the same to the sub-inspector.
He also produced a key
from out ofa bunch of keys, which fitted the lock of the
shop belonging to the complainant, and the sub-inspector took
into posscasion both the key and the lock.
The appellant was
tried for offences under ss. 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal
Code and convicted by the Magistrate under both the sections.
The appellant contended that the conviction wa• unsustainable
(I) [1958] S. C. R 871.
'·
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
831
because (I) the appellant's h~nding over the box and the k•y
amounted to a confessional statement made to a police officer
and, therefore, the production was inadmissible in evidence
under ss. 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and
thats. 27 was not applicable, and (2) ss. 380 and 457 of the
Indian Penal Code were offences which fell under s. 71 of the
Code and, therefore, the appellant could not be punished
under both the sections.
Held, thats. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was
applicable to the case and that the conviction of the app•llant
was valid.
A discovery of a fact includes the object fO'lnd, the place
from which it is produced and the knowledge of tre accused as
to its existence.
Applying this test, the evidence in regard to
the discovery of the kev as well as the box was rightly
admitted into evidence in the p'resent case.
Lackman Singh v.
The
State, [1952]
S.C.R.839,
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. The State of Bombay, [1955]
1 S.C.R. 903
and
Pulukuri J(otayy• v. Emperor, (1946)
L. R. 74 I.A. 65, relied on.
Held, further, that the two offences under ss. 380 and
457 of the Indian Penal Code did not fall under s. 71 of the
Code, and, therefore, the conviction under both the sections
was not illegal.
In re Natesa Mud<i/i'.ar, A.LR. 1945 Mad. 330, consi-
dered.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil
Appeal No. 243 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from thfl judgment
and order dated September 25, I !l!'i!l. of the Allaha-
bad High Court in Criminal Re,·ision No. 1546 of
1958.
M.l. Khowaja. for the appellant.
G. C. Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the respondent.
1962. January '.!9.
The Ji1dgment of the
Court was delivered by
.
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the
Judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad
dismissing the revision application of the appellant
1962
Udai Bhan
v,
f'h1 .\tat1 of
Utlar Pradesh
KalJur J.
IllQ
Udai BJup,
••
Tiu Btcl.,,f
UllM Pralu~
Kop"' J.
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
against his conviction under ss. 457 and 380 of the
Indian Penal Code.
On October 13, 1956, at about 8 p.m. the
complainant locked his shop and went out for a
short while. On his return after about three-fourths
of an hour he found his shop broken open and a
box containing Rs. 2,000 and clothes and another
box containing Rs. 200 stolen. He was told by
prosecution witnesses Lila.dhar a.nd Harnam Singh
a.nd two others tha.t they had seen the appellant
a.nd Nara.in ca.rrying a.way the boxeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.