1. This Rule is directed against an order of conviction passed by Mr. S. Q. S. Huda, Magistrate, 1st Class, Thakurgaon sentenc--ing the accused-petitioner under section 411, P. P. C. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the night follow--ing Sunday, the 28th September 1965 there was a theft in the shop of P. W. 1 Md. Anisur Rahman. One Safidul saw the doors open and informed P. W. 1 who on going to the shop detected that some articles had been stolen away from there. P. W 1 narrated the occurrence to others and thereafter follow--ing the line of fallen rice from the shop to the house of accused Ainul Huq, went to the house of the accused. On interroga--tion by the local Chairman the accused confessed his guilt and brought out some articles, viz. German patromax light Exh. 1 and a gunny bag containing 1 maund 13 seers of rice Exh. 2 from a nearby sugar-cane field. Some stolen articles were also recovered from the house of the brother of the accused. The accused along with the recovered articles was produced to the thana where P. W. 1 lodged an ejahar. The local police investigated into the case and submitted a charge-sheet against the accused. He was thus put on trial before the learned Magistrate to meet a charge under section 411, P. P. C.
3. The plea of the accused was one of innocence. He asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case out of grudge because he owed some money to P. W. 1 and the latter failing to realise that money concocted tile preset case.
4. Seven witnesses for the prosecution and none for the defence were examined in the case. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as stated above. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Dinajpur affirmed the said order of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved thereby the accused-petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
5. The factum of theft in the shop of P. W. 1 on the alleged night has been proved by overwhelming evidence P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have uniformly stated that a theft was committed in the shop of P.
6. W. 1 on the night following the 28th September 1965 and a number of articles, namely, patromax light, rice, cigarettes, match boxes, soaps, snow, powders, blades, hair oil, salt, batteries, etc. Were stolen away from that shop, There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the above witnesses.
7. P. W. 1 has stated in his deposition that on the next morning by following the line of fallen rice, he along with others went to the house of the accused and on interrogation the accused admitted that he had committed theft in the shop on the previous night. The accused also made certain statements and in pursuance thereof, led the witnesses to a sugar-cane field just one rosi west to his house and recovered one German patromax light Exh. 1 and a gunny bag containing 1 maund 13 seers of rice Exh. 2 from the said sugar-cane field. The witness identified these articles as his property. The accused also recovered certain other stolen articles from the house of his brother. P.
8. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have fully corroborated P. W. I in this respect. The recovery of the stolen articles, particularly German patromax light Exh. 1 and a gunny bag containing 1 maund 13 seers of rice Exh.
9. 2 from the sugar-cane field in pursuance of the state--ment of the accused at his pointing out, has thus been established by overwhelming evidence.
10. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence in their judgments and held that the accused kept the stolen articles in the sugar-cane field and was thus in possession of the same.
11. Stolen articles discovered at pointing out by the accused from a sugar-cane field just close to his house soon after the occurrence and the accused not explaining how he came to know of the same must be presumed to be planted and possessed by the accused. It makes little difference whether the stolen article are discovered from the house of the accused or have been dis-- covered at his pointing out from a ditch, pond bush, jungle, sugar-cane field or similar other places which may not be in his direct domain. In the latter cases, if it is established that the articles were so secreted that nobody else would have normal had access to it or would have known of it and if in these circum--stances, the accused take the witnesses to that place and product the articles from the place where they are secretly hidden and if n explanation is forthcoming from the accused, then in my opinion, the conclusion must follow that the accused was in possession of these articles giving rise to the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act, if other conditions are fulfilled. This view receives support from the cases of Jiando v. State (PLD 1962 Kar.
12. 288), Sher Mohammad v. Emperor (AIR 1945 Lah. 27) and Kitab Ali v. The State (21 D L R 377).
13. I find no reason to differ with the principles enunciated therein. In the instant case, there being nothing to show that the articles might have been hidden by some body else and that the accused derived the knowledge without himself having concealed them, it may be safely held that the stolen patromax light Exh. 1 and the gunny bag containing rice Exh. 2 were recovered from the possession of the accused himself.
14. Thus all the ingredients of the offence under section 411, P. P. C. Having been present and proved by convincing evidence, I find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction in the case.
15. Mr. Serajuddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has made a grievance that the charge framed against the accused is defective inasmuch as the charge omitted to state that the accused dishonestly received the articles and that omission has prejudiced the accused in taking proper defence in the case.
16. The charge framed against the accused runs as follows :- "That you on or about the 3rd Aswin 1372 B. S. Day of at Fakdanpur P. S., Thakurgaon dishonestly retained one German Patromax Exh. 1, a gunny bag containing 1 maund 13 seers of mill husked paddy and some other articles belonging to P. W. 1 Anisur Rahman, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code and within my cognizance."
17. The facts put in the charge as quoted above are very clear and give unmistakeably an indication what are the allegations against the accused. The trend of defence taken by the accused and his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Show that the accused understood the charge quite well and he had no occasion to be prejudiced thereby. In the circumstances, I do not find any force to the contention of the learned Advocate.
18. The accused-petitioner has been duly examined under sec--tion 342, Cr. P. C. The salient features in the evidence having been put to the accused, it cannot be argued that the accused was to any way prejudiced. The grievance made by the learned Advocate in this respect has no substance.
19. The sentence passed in the case is not at all severe.
20. The Rule, in the circumstances, is discharged.