In order to establish the offence of secreting postal articles under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the prosecution must prove that the accused was in exclusive possession of the articles.

Headnote:
INDIAN POST OFFICE ACT, 1898 - SECTION 52 - SECRETING REGISTERED LETTERS - EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - INFERENCE FROM OPPORTUNITY AND MOTIVE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a postman, was convicted of secreting five registered letters under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The letters were found in an almirah in the house where the appellant lived with his father, who produced the key to the almirah. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that the letters were planted by a rival faction in the post office.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the appellant's acquittal and convicted him of secreting the letters, relying on the following reasons: (1) the appellant had the opportunity and means to secure the letters; (2) nine of the letters were addressed to the appellant himself; (3) the appellant's father would not have incriminated his son by planting the letters; and (4) the appellant had a motive to secrete the letters.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has established that the five registered letters were in the exclusive possession of the appellant. 2. Whether the High Court erred in relying on inferences from opportunity and motive alone to hold that the appellant had secreted the letters.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to prove that the letters were in the exclusive possession of the appellant. The almirah in which the letters were found was not in the appellant's exclusive possession, but at best in the joint possession of the appellant and his father. 2. The High Court erred in relying on inferences from opportunity and motive alone to hold that the appellant had secreted the letters. The mere fact that the appellant had the opportunity and motive to secrete the letters is not sufficient to establish that he actually did so.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the appellant, and restored the appellant's acquittal.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR J. : These three appeals arise out of three separate trials before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, but were argued together as they raise identical questions. In all these trials the appellant, who was a postman attached to the Bulandsahr post office was tried for offences under S. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 (Act IV of 1898) and in two of them, also for offences under Ss. 467 and 471,1. P. C. Briefly stated the allegations against the appellant were that he either stole or secreted five registered letters and that 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 appeal to the acquittal of the appellant in respect of offences under 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.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution 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 Police, Bulandsahr on May 12,1956 in connection with a case against Messrs Greenwood Publicity, they accidentally discovered a large number of letters and postcards and also the five registered letters in question. At the time of the search the appellant who happens to be a trade union official, was not in Bulandsahr but was away on leave at Delhi in connection with a postal conference. These articles were found in an almirah, the key of which was produced by the appellant s father. The articles were not listed at the spot but were taken to the Kotwali in a sealed packet and later on listed there. A number of other articles were also seized at that time but we are not concerned with them as they have no connection with the charges against the appellant.

3. Briefly, the appellant s defence in all these cases is that there are two factions in the Bulandsahr post, office and that these articles were planted by the opposite party. According to him the planting must have occurred in the Kotwali when the Sub- Inspector purported to make a list of the articles seized from the house in which the appellant lives. Further, according to him, neither the house nor the almirah from which the articles are said to have been seized was in his exclusive possession. He stated - and that fact is not denied - that the house which consists of two rooms only has been rented in his father s name, that both of them live in those two rooms and that the almirah was in his father s possession inasmuch as the key was produced by him.

4. On behalf of the appellant Mr. B. C. Misra has raised the following six points :

(1) That on the findings arrived at by the High Court no offence under S. 52 of the p. Post Office Act has been made out.

(2)That it has not been established that the five registered letters were in the exclusive possession of the appellant.

(3) That the search was illegal inasmuch as it was in contravention of the provisions of Ss. 103 and 165 Cri. P. C.

(4) That in examining the appellant the Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with the requirements of S. 342 Cri. P. C

(5) That the High Court has not found that there were compelling reasons for setting aside the appellant s acquittal.

(6) The sentences in the three cases having been ordered to run consecutively the total sentence is excessive

5. We will deal with the last four points

Click Here to Read the rest of this document