SHIV DAYAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was tried by the Magistrate First Class Agar under Section 215 of the Penal Code for having taken Rs. 200/- from Gangaram whose buffaloes had been stolen but not doing his all to get the thieves convicted.

( 2 ) HE was sentenced to suffer Rule I, for one year. The conviction and sentence have been maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that two buffaloes belonging to Gangaram were stolen from his house. He went in search for them. He received information that the buffaloes had been seen with Dewa Balia (petitioner ). He was, therefore, contacted. He agreed that the buffaloes would be restored to Gangaram provided he was paid Rs. 200/ -. This took place soon after the theft which itself had taken place on the night between the 29th and the 30th November 1956. The agreement between Gangaram and Dewa Balia was arrived at in the morning of November 30, 1956. The amount was paid to him thus; Rs. 175/- paid in cash and one armlet (Bajuband) valued at Rs. 25/- was delivered. On 1-12-1956, Dewa Balia restored the buffaloes to Gangaram in a jungle. Along with the petitioner, Dewa Bagri, Shankar and Amar Singh were also tried, the latter three for the offences under Section 380 of the Penal Code. There was a joint trial of all the four accused above-named. However the other three were acquitted and the petitioner Dewa Balia alone was convicted. Shri Atal, learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the prosecution evidence as unreliable. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. The learned courts below have rightly held on the basis of the evidence of Gangaram (P. W. 2), Hukum singh (P. W. 4) and Rod Singh (P. W. 6) that the appellant agreed to restore the buffaloes in exchange of Rs. 200/- and that be took them to a jungle where the cattle were actually restored to the possession of Gangaram. Shri Atal could not point out anything to persuade me to interfere with that finding of fact.

( 4 ) THEN it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that his plea of alibi was wrongly rejected by the Courts below. He led evidence to show that on 30-111956 he was in fact, present in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shajapur. This contention too is devoid of force. It has been rightly found that shajapur and Pachore were connected by two motor buses so that he could be present at both the places on the same day. On that ground no interference with the finding of the trial court is possible.

( 5 ) SHRI Atal has next contended that the whole trial was vitiated because of the contravention of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The argument is that the charge against the appellant was under Section 215 I. P. C. while that against the others was under Section 380 I. P. C. and this was not permissible because the offences were different and were not committed in the course of the same transaction,

( 6 ) IT must be mentioned at once that when, the accused was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. he did not say a single word against Dewa Bagri or Shankar or Amar Singh. His plea was that of ignorance of the theft and every thing that followed. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner's plea was that he had received Rs. 200/-and he used all means in his power to cause the thieves to be apprehended and convicted of the offence. Instead he completely denied having received the money and further, he stated that the whole case was fabricated because of enmity with Hukum Singh.

( 7 ) SHRI Atal has supported his contention by the decisions reported in Raj Narain v. The State, AIR 1953 All 448, Sheo Pujan Koiri v. The State AIR 1954 Pat 365, amar Singh v. The State, AIR 1954 Punj 106 and Umar Bin v. The State, AIR 1954 sau 15. In those cases the offences and circumstances were quite different from those in the present case. It is true that a misjoinder of several persons in one trial was held to be an illegality no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document