It is established by a long catena of decisions of other High - TopicsExpress



          

It is established by a long catena of decisions of other High Courts that where an accused is found in possession of stolen articles forming the subject-matter of distinct thefts, he cannot be tried and convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code more than once, unless there is evidence to show that he had received them on different occasions. The leading case is Ishan Muchi v. Queen Empress, ILR 15 Cal 511 (A) decided by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in 1888. It proceeded on the ground that in the absence of evidence contra, the accused may have received all the goods at the same time and that would constitute only one offence. This decision was followed and the principle applied to cases of dishonest retention in Queen Empress v. Makhan, ILR 15 All 317 (B) and in a number of later decisions Sheo Charan v. Emperor, AIR 1923 All 547 (C); Ganeshi Sahu v. Emperor, AIR 1923 Cal 557 (D); Emperor v. Bishun Singh, AIR 1925 Pat 20 (E). The two decisions last cited related to cases where the previous acquittal was held to bar the subsequent trial.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:51:29 +0000

Trending Topics




© 2015