JUDGMENT
S.N. Pathak, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by appellants Lakhan Sah @ Lakhan Sonar and Sukhdeo Sah @ Sukhdeo Sonar. Both the appellants were convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by Shri B.D. Jha, Sessions Judge, Begusarai by his judgment dated 31st May, 1989.
2. The case of prosecution according to the fardbeyan of the informant, Nripendra Singh, was to the effect that in the night between 21st and 22nd January, 1983, there was a dacoity in his house in which his brother Suresh Prasad Singh received injuries and his nephew Lallu Kumar was killed. The informant himself managed to escape and raised alarm which attracted villagers who confronted the dacoits and in the firing resorted to by the dacoits, one villager Ajo Thakur was shot at causing some injuries upon him. The injured and the deceased were carried to Begusarai hospital where fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by a police officer of Begusarai Police Station. Subsequently, on 23.1.1983 certain looted articles were recovered from house of appellants. A case bearing Khagaria P.S. Case No. 13 of 1983 was also registered. However, Ballia police which has registered the case of dacoity recovered those articles and prosecuted the accvised-appellants for an offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Sessions Judge on the basis of 7 P.Ws. as also on the basis of seizure-list and some other documents found the accused-appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as stated above.
4. The impugned order of sentence was challenged on the ground, inter alia, that seizure made by the police from the house of the appellants did not follow rules and laws in this connection and so the seizure was vitiated. It was also submitted that accused-appellants faced another trial for the same offence at Khagaria in the Court of Judicial Magistrate for an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. So the order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri B.D. Jha, Sessions Judge, was also bad in law.
5. I find that out of the witnesses examined, P.W. 1 was a formal one. He brought on the record formal F.I.R. P.W. 2 was Ajo Thakur, a villager, who supported the offence of dacoity in the house of the informant. P.Ws. 3 to 6 were all lady inmates of the house of the informant who spoke of the dacoity and they also identified in Court the articles’ recovered from the house of the appellant. There was also a seizure-list (Ext. 3) which referred to the seizure of certain ornaments from the house of the appellants. P.W. 9 was Officer-in-Charge of Ballia P.S. who was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 was the informant himself. He also supported the case of dacoity in his house.
6. P.W. 7 was the B.D.O. who held T.I. parade of the looted articles. Of course, this witness admitted-in his cross-examination at paragraph 4 that the articles produced before him did not bear any seal and they were kept in a bundle also examined. So, of course, there is some violation of rules pertaining to seizure by police, but, I think, the infirmity attaching to the seizure may make the seizure irregular, but it will not amount to illegality of the same. The fact of seizure has been conceded to by police officer who seized the articles as also by witnesses. The accused in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simply denied the seizure but did not claim the seizure articles as their own though they had pleaded through a D.W. that they were licensed goldsmith. The case of seizure of certain ornaments in huge quantity from the house of the appellants was almost established.
7. It was submitted that the accused-appellants, faced two trials for the same offence. I find that there was perhaps a petition in the Sessions Court dated 27.6.1984. The order-sheet referred to the petition but it has also been stated therein that no copy was supplied to the P.P. nor this petition was pressed. So it is not clear whether there was any order in this connection by the Sessions Court and no other step was taken by the appellants in the lower Court to bring it to the notice of the Court that the accused-appellants were facing a separate trial for offence of recovery of articles of this case anywhere else other than the Sessions Court at Begusarai. A particular judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in G.R. Case No. 57 of 1983 has been filed to show that the accused-appellants were prosecuted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted. On perusal of this judgment, I find that the appellants were prosecuted for recovery of certain articles on 23.1.1983, but from the judgment, it is not clear whether they were prosecuted for recovery of the same articles which were exhibited in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1984. The P.S. case of Khagaria which has been referred to in the instant sessions Case as 13 of 1983 was the same case for which the accused-appellants were tried before the Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria is also not revealed by the judgment filed before this Court. So it has not been disclosed that the accused-appellants faced two trials for recovery of the same articles, for which they were tried in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1984.
8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri B.D. Jha, Sessions Judge, does not necessitate any interference by this Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is hereby confirmed.