Bedi, J.@mdashThe facts of this case briefly are as under : The petitioner was employed as a Sub-Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Khanna, and was incharge of godown No. 6. This godown, according to the record, contained 816 bags of wheat on the 8th February 1961. Lakhu Ram Chaukidar had the keys of the outer door of the godown. Shri Badri Parshad, Secretary of the Khanna, Grain Syndicate, had one key of this godown and the other key remained in the office of Shri Harbans Singh, Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies (P.W. 8). It is alleged that on 8th February 196l the petitioner obtained the key of the godown from Shri Badri Parshad on the plea that he wanted to check the stocks therein. The petitioner also got the key of the outer gate of the godown from Lakhu Ram Chaukidar (P.W. 4) telling him that he wanted to check the stocks. Lakhu Ram (P.W. 4) after handing over the key went to the bazar from where he returned after some time and saw the peti�tioner taking away four bags of wheat in a cart. On the 9th February 1961 Shri Balkar Singh, Fumigation Inspector, Ludhiana Circle, came to Khanna for the inspection of the Government godown. Shri Harbans Singh L.P. W. 8, also accompanied him in his official capacity. When they reached godown No. 6, Lakhu Ram Chaukidar was summoned and was told to bring the key of the main gate of the godown. Lakhu Ram did so. Then Harbans Singh took out his bunch of keys and also sent for Badri Parshad, Secretary of the Syndicate, telling him to bring the other key of the lock. Badri Parshad came and told Harbans Singh that the petitioner Pritam Singh had taken away that key from him on the 8th February 1961 and that the same was not returned by him. The peti�tioner was then summoned and he produced both the keys of the lock of godown No. 6. The lock was opened and on checking the stocks, instead of 816 bags of wheat 812 bags of wheat were found. Enquiries were made about the missing bags from the petitioner but he could not give any satisfactory answer. Harbans Singh then telephoned to the District Food Controller, Ludhiana, who came to the spot on the 10th February 1961 and checked the stocks. The petitioner was also present at that time. The District Food Controller made enquiries from the petitioner about the four bags of wheat which were found short, but the petitioner could not give any plausible answer, and, therefore, the matter was reported to the police on the same day in the evening.
2. The petitioner was interrogated on the 11th February 1961 by the police and while in the police custody, he made the disclosure statement Exhibit P.B. to the effect that he had sold four bags of wheat to Bhajan Singh (P.W. 6) of village Rasulra and that he could get of the same recovered. This statement was witnessed by Gurcharan Singh (P.W. 2) and Harbans Singh (P.W. 8) besides the investigating officer Shri Joginder Singh (P.W. 10). He then led the investigating party to Kasulra to the house of Bhaian Singh and produced four bags of wheat bearing Government marks besides receipt Exhibit P.C., showing that the wheat in question was sold by the petitioner to Bhajan Singh of the 8th February Idol for Rs. 163/11/. The wheat as well as the receipt were taken into possession in the presence of Bachittar Singh (P.W. 5), Bhajan Singh (P.W. 6) besides the Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh (P.W. 10).
3. Alter due investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial u/s 09, Indian Penal Code. The trial was held by Shri Gulwant Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, who found the charge proved against the petitioner only u/s 403, Indian Penal Code, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, Out of the fine, if reaped, Rs. 160/- were to be paid to Bhajan Singh P.W. by way of compensation. The bags of wheat were ordered to be returned to the Food and Civil Supplies Department, vide his order dated the 27th March, 1962. The petitioner approached the Court of Session in appeal which was dismissed by Shri Gurnam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his order dated the 5th July 1962., against which this revision has arisen.
4. The petitioner when examined u/s 342.. Criminal Procedure Code, denied the allegations against him. He, however, admitted his signatures on the receipt Exhibit P.C. and averted that the same were obtained by the police under pressure. He denied having produced the key of the godown in question before the Sub Inspector and also disowned the disclosure statement alleged to have been made by him. He attributed this case to his enmity with Harbans Singh (P.W. 4) and and Harnek Singh (P.W. (sic)) and examined two witnesses in defence. The prosecution, on the other hand, examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of their case besides Shri Palta, D.F.S.O. Ludhiana, who was examined as C.W. 1.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at considerable length. His main argument was that the lock of the godown in question could not be opened until both the keys were applied to it. One of those keys remained with the Food Inspector Shri Harbans Singh and the other with shri Badri Parshad, Secretary of the Syndicate. He also contended that the petitioner was not in charge of the godown but it was Harnek Singh Sub-Inspector. He, therefore, vehemently argued that the red culprits were Harbans Singh Food Inspector and Harnek Singh (P.W. 1) and that they have roped in the petitioner as a scapegoat in order to save their own skins But the defence counsel was unable to effectively attack the disclosure statement and the ultimate recovery of the four bags of wheat from Bhajan Singh P.W. He was as also unable to explain satisfactorily how the signatures of the petitioner were found on Exhibit P.C. relating to the sale transaction of this wheat to Bhajan Singh. The only explanation given by him was that the signatures of the petitioner were obtained of Exhibit P.C. under coercion by the police during the investigation. But this explanation does not appear to be convincing at all. One fails to understand why the police should have tried to rope in the petitioner if the fault lay on the shoulders of some other persons. There is nothing on the record to show either that the police was in league or on friendly terms with Harbans Singh and Harnek Singh P.Ws.
6. It is not denied that the wheat recovered in this case was Government property. This wheat admittedly was recovered on the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, which was attested by him, while in the custody of the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was a statement made to the police and thus inadmissible. But clause (2) to section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, is a complete answer to the above objection. This clause lays down that nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of section 32, Clause (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
7. The next argument of the defence counsel was that according to the evidence on the record the petitioner is alleged to have mentioned in his disclosure statement that he had sold four bags of wheat in question to Bhajan Singh and that he could get the same recovered, but the words "he had sold" amounted to confession before the police, which was inadmissible in evidence. A perusal of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, however refutes the above argument. It is true that according to sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act confessions made to the police cannot be proved and are inadmissible, but section 27 is an exception. This section is in these terms :
27. Provided that, when any tact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
8. The words "whether it amounts to a confession or not" are significant for our purposes It is not denied that on the basis of the information given by the petitioner in his disclosure statement the four bags of wheat in question had been recovered. This is not all. We have then the statement of Lakhu Ram Chaukidar (P.W. 4) who actually saw the petitioner removing four bags of wheat on a cart from the godown.
The other evidence in this case which clinches the issue is that of Bhajan Singh. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the petitioner beyond any reason able doubt and that he has been rightly convicted. The sentence of the petitioner under the circumstances is by no means excessive. The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.
