Irregularities in search and seizure proceedings do not necessarily render the search illegal or the evidence inadmissible, and the term "transmissible articles" in Section 52 of the Post Office Act means articles capable of being transmitted or conveyed from one person or place to another.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput Division in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1958.

2. The accused was a Class IV Officer of the Postal Department working in the Meenambakkam Air Port Sorting Office. His duties were to open the mail bag, keep the postal articles on the sorting table and take the preliminary sorted letters for detailed sorting and keen them in the detailed sorting rack. There is no dispute that this accused was employed on the 17th, 18th and 19th February, 1957 on this work. This is proved by P.W. 3, the clerk of that office, the accuseds admission and his signatures in the attendance register Ex. P-3.

3. In this case three postal articles are concerned. M.Os. 1 to 3 are the envelopes.. M.O. 1, Air Mail Envelope was posted at Jaffna on 17-2-1957 and M.Os. 2 Air Mail Envelopes and 3 were posted at Ipoh and Batubahat on the 15th February, 1957. They should have in the normal course reached the Air Port at Meenambakkam on 18-2-1957. M.Os. 1 was addressed to P.W. 5, M.O. 2 was addressed to P.W. 6 and M.O. 3 to P.W. 4. None of these letters reached P.Ws. 4 to 6 as they ought to have reached.

4. It is seen from the complaint made under Ex. P-1 as early as 19-7-1956 by P.W. 1 Madhava Menon, who was then the Air Mail Inspector at Meenambakkam, that postal articles were intercepted and torn. The accused was one of the persons suspected in this connection. This complaint was registered as Crime No. 8/56 of B-4 Air Port Meenambakkam Police Station and was endorsed to P.W. 8, Inspector, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras, whose office is at Mylapore, for investigation. He commenced investigation on 21-11-1956.

5. On information received on 19-2-1957 P.W. 8 searched the house of the accused on 20-2-1957 at Kilpauk. The Inspector recovered M.Os. 1 to 3, Two demand drafts for Rs. 350 and Rs. 1772-8-2 (M. Os. 4 and 5) were found inside M.O. 1. Inside M.O. 2 was the letter Ex. P-8 written by one M. E. Abdul Mohammad to P.W. 6. M.O. 3 contained Ex. P-7, the letter to P.W. 4 from his brother and two photographs (Exs. P-5 and P-6) of P.W. 4s brothers daughter and son-in-law and P.W. 4s son taken on the occasion of their marriage and thread marriage ceremony respectively. P.W. 8 prepared a search list Ex. P-9 which was attested by P.W. 7 Abdul Latiff and another Doraiswami, not examined. On 20-2-1957 itself P.W. 8 arrested the accused.

6. P.W. 8 went to Ipoh and Batubahat in connection with this investigation and a Sub Inspector was sent to Ceylon for investigation. On the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid on 30-11-1957.

7. The accused admitted in the committing Court that his house was searched but they did not seize anything. He agreed that the three concerned letters ought to have reached Meenambakkam on 18-2-1957 in the ordinary course. In the Sessions Court the accused admitted that his house was searched but denied that any of the articles concerned in this case were recovered. In the Sessions Court the accused also went to the extent of denying the presence of P.W. 7 which he had indirectly admitted in the committal Court stating that when they searched his house the articles were not recovered. The accused stated that he had been falsely implicated. The accused did not) examine any D.Ws.

8. On this evidence the learned Sessions fudge came to the conclusion that the prosecution his affirmatively and satisfactorily proved its case against the accused for an offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 100/- if collected, Rs. 60/- was made payable as compensation to the Postal Department.

9. On the evidence set out above, proved by the 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, there can be no doubt that the prosecution has affirmatively and satisfactoril