Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

Facts1:
Sections 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful
Possession) Act, 1955 were used to charge the appellant. On January 7, 1967, Shri K. K.
Venkateswaram, Sub-Inspector of Railway Police Force, Chakradharpur, and others were
travelling to Chakradharpur on a third class bogey of the 328 Down Nagpur-Chakradharpur
Passenger train, according to the prosecution case. When the train was between Jaraikela and
Manoharpur Railway Stations, they noticed some knocking sounds coming from the next bogey.
Venkateswaram, P. Y. Kundulu, Head Rakshak, and D. Bhaskar Rao went into the adjoining
bogey as soon as the train arrived at Manoharpur Station and found the accused alone. They
discovered that the mirror from the bogey's lavatory had been removed during their
investigation. When they asked about the missing mirror, the accused denied any knowledge of
it. Following that, the accused's bag was checked, and a mirror with the mark "IR" was
discovered inside. The police filed a complaint under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code
based on these facts. However, the accusations were confirmed in the Trial Court under Section
411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act,
1955. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty under both provisions and sentenced him to six
months in jail in each court, with the sentences to run consecutively.
Issues:
Whether the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code were compiled by the Trial
Court?
Whether it can be said that provisions of Section 342 had not been complied merely because it
was not put to the appellant that the mirror was stolen?
Rules:
1. Section 3 of Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955
Unlawful possession of railway stores: If any person is found, or is proven to have been,
in possession of any article of railway stores reasonably suspected of being stolen or
obtained unlawfully, and cannot satisfactorily explain how he obtained it, he shall be
punished by imprisonment for a term up to five years, or by fine, or by both.
2. Section 411 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Dishonestly receiving stolen property: Whoever receives or retains stolen goods
dishonestly, knowing or having reason to suspect it is stolen property, is punishable by
imprisonment of either description for a term up to three years, or by fine, or by both.
3. Section 379 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Punishment for Theft: Theft is punishable by imprisonment of either kind for a time up to
three years, or by a fine, or by both.
1 (2961) 2 SCR 51
Analysis and Conclusion:
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibassa, upheld the trial court's decision
on appeal. The Appellant filed a revision petition with the Patna High Court, but it was dismissed
in limine.The Appellant's primary objection, as previously stated, is that the provisions of
Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, have not been adequately followed.
Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court asked the accused the
following two questions:
Question 1: It is said that on September 6, 1967 (?) (7th January, 1967) at approximately 6-1/4
p.m. at Manoharpur railway station, a mirror was discovered in the third class compartment of
the 328 Down Nagpur—Chakradharpur train. Question 2: It is reported that the appellant
damaged the above-mentioned mirror that was retrieved on the above-mentioned date. The
Appellant answered in negative to both questions..
The question actually posed to the accused refers to the railway mirror that was recovered from
him.
When confronted with this form of the inquiry, the Appellant's learned Counsel had virtually
nothing to say in support of his client's grievance. However, it was argued half-heartedly that the
charge that the mirror was stolen railway property should have been mentioned in the question
asked to the accused, because this is an important ingredient for invoking Section 411, IPC, and
failure to do so has vitiated the trial and the conviction. As a result, the court could not agree
with the learned Counsel.
The facts of the case are straightforward and uncomplicated. It is impossible to argue that the
Appellant's examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure was insufficient simply
because the accused was not informed that the mirror had been taken. It is undeniably true that
courts must ensure that the accused is given all relevant material circumstances appearing in
evidence so that he can say whatever he wants in his defence in relation to the prosecution case
and explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him, but, as stated in Ram Shankar
Singh v. State of West Bengal 2, every error or omission in complying with Section 342, Code of
Criminal Procedure does not necessitate a new trial. Interference on this basis would not be
permissible unless there is an injustice as a result of an irregularity in compliance with Section
342. When the Appellant denied the recovery of a railway mirror in response to inquiry No. 1,
the Court's failure to include the fact that the mirror was stolen cannot be said to have caused him
any prejudice or injustice. Given his response to the first question, we believe it was pointless to
ask him any more questions concerning the mirror Ming had stolen—see Keki Bejonji v. State of
Bombay3. In the circumstances of the case, the Appellant did not have a sufficient opportunity to
express what he intended to say about the prosecution against him.
It is impossible to argue that the accused's examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal
Procedure, was insufficient simply because the article was not accused of him. It is undeniably
2 1962 SCJ 337
3 (1972) 2 SCC 451
true that courts must take care to present 411 the relevant material circumstances appearing in
evidence to the accused in order for him to say what he wants in his defence in relation to the
prosecution case and explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him, but every
error or omission in complying with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure does not
necessarily void the trial. Interference on this basis would not be permissible unless there is an
unfairness as a result of a violation of Section 342. When the accused disputed the recovery of
the piece in response to a query, the Court's failure to mention the fact that the article was stolen
cannot be regarded to have caused him any prejudice or injustice.

Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ajit Kumar Chaudhary V - S State of Bihar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts1:

2. Section 411 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Section 379 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

You might also like