Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 411

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 30th October 1969, in Criminal Revision Case No. 599 of 1968). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342-Examination of accused-No copy of accused's statement recorded tinder S. 342, filed before Supreme Court-Contention that alleged confessional statement was not put to accused in his examination uncle, S. 342 Not possible of test in circumstances-- Court can only presume that examination was property conducted-Even otherwise, such, being an irregularity, could not vitiate trial in absence of evidence of any prejudice. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1980) S 411 stolen property S.411 covers both receipt and retention of stolen property Accused charged for retaining stolen property and actually found in possession of such property almost immediately after theft, held rightly convicted under S.411 and on proper charge. Date of hearing : 23rd June 1970. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner was charged under section 411, P. P. C. with dishonestly retaining one German Patromax Light, a gunny bag containing 1 maund and 13 seers of rice and some other articles belonging to Anisur Rahman (P. W. 1) knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. On the night following Sunday, the 28th September 1965, there was a theft in the shop of Anisur Raman. Anlur Rahman, after informing others about the theft, followed the line of fallen rice from his shop which led to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was interrogated by the local Chairman before whom he confessed his guilt, took him and others with him to a nearby sugar-cane field and from there brought out a German Patromax Light, a gunny bag containing 1 maund and 13 seers of rice and some other articles. Anisur Ralrman identified r the Patromax and the rice bag as belonging to him. The petitioner set up the defence that he was being falsely implicated out of grudge, because, be owed some money to Anisur Rahman. The latter had concocted this case to bring pressure on him to repay the money. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution who fully supported the prosecution case the…