Introduction

• In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of theft under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and its essential ingredients.
• The Court also discussed at length about convicting the accused based on retracted confession and Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Facts

• The appellant was convicted under Section 379 of the IPC by the Sessions judge, Alwar, for his involvement in tampering with documents related to the issuance of an electricity license.
• The appellant, Pyarelal Bhargava, a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer's Office, allegedly facilitated the removal of certain documents from the office and their substitution by others at the behest of Ram Kumar Ram.
• Ram Kumar Ram, in collusion with Pyarelal Bhargava, replaced certain documents related to the license application with others, leading to a delay in the issuance of the license to the company.
• Both Pyarelal Bhargava and Ram were prosecuted, and while Ram's conviction was set aside on appeal, Bhargava's conviction was upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan.

Issue Involved

• Whether the offence of theft under Section 378 of IPC has been committed or not?

Observation

• The confession made by Pyarelal Bhargava before the Chief Secretary was found to be not induced by threat within the meaning of Section 24 of the IEA.
• The court determined that the statement made by the Chief Secretary did not appear to constitute a threat, as it was a general statement any person investigating missing property might make.
• Pyarelal Bhargava's retracted confession was considered admissible, and its truth was corroborated by other evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence.
• Therefore, the court found no grounds to disturb the conviction based on the retracted confession.

Conclusion

• The court concluded that Pyarelal Bhargava's actions met the elements of theft under Section 379 of the IPC.
• Despite Pyarelal Bhargava's temporary removal of the documents from the office and his intention to return them later, his unauthorized actions constituted wrongful loss to the Engineering Department, meeting the criteria for theft.