Badri Prasad @ Badri Saw vs State of Jharkhand

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned APP, appearing for the State is present. As this matter is

pending since 2008, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record.   Â

This application is directed against the judgment dated 24.04.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2008,

whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.01.2008 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate,

Railway, Dhanbad in R.P. Case No. 114 of 1997 (T.R. No. 607 of 2008), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 3(a) of the R.P.

(U.P.) Act and sentencing him to undergo 3 years R.I., has been affirmed.Â

The prosecution story in brief, is that, the informant had received secret information that huge quantity of railway materials were kept inside

godown-cum-shop of the petitioner at Bagodar Saria Road near Bagodar bus stand. A team was constituted and a raid was conducted in the godown-

cumshop of the petitioner which led to recovery of a huge quantity of railway property like brake blocks, pandral rail clips, etc. No papers with respect

to the said material could be produced by the petitioner. After an enquiry on submission of enquiry report, cognizance was taken and charge was

framed u/s 3(a) R.P. (U.P.) Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Â

In course of trial 07 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Brahmeshwar Nath Srivastava, has stated that he had

examined the seized materials and found it to be railway property which was not auctionable. His report has been marked as Ext. 1. This witness had

identified the seized articles which were variously marked as Ext. I, II, III and IV. P.W. 2 Samir Chandra Sarkar had stated that on 31.01.1997 he

was posted as Inspector, R.P.F. and on receiving certain information he had conducted raid in the godown of the petitioner which led to recovery of

huge quantity of railway materials. He had stated that no papers could be produced by the petitioner. This witness had prepared seizure list which was

marked as Ext. 2. He has also stated that the petitioner used to collect railway materials from others. P.W. 3 Lalan Dubey was also a member of the

raiding party and this witness had conducted an enquiry into the allegation. He had stated that the petitioner was made accused in other cases also.

This witness had submitted the enquiry report which has been marked as Ext. VII. P.W. 4Â Â P. K. Pal had stated that on 01.10.1997 he was

posted as Junior Engineer in Gomoh Railway Station. The seized materials were placed before him and he had deposed that most of the materials are

not sold in open market. This witness had given a report which has been marked as Ext. 8. P.W. 5, Simon Francis and P.W. 6, Sheshman Dubey

were also members of the raiding party who have supported the prosecution case with respect to recovery of huge quantity of stolen railway

materials. P.W. 7 Ajay Kumar Singh is a formal witness.Â

Upon consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and on going through the records, it appears that P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were members of the

raiding party, who all have supported recovery of huge railway materials from the shop-cum-godown of the petitioner. The seized materials were

found to be railway property not auctionable and not found in the open market, as has been stated by P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. The petitioner was

apprehended on the spot and no papers could be produced by the petitioner with respect to the said railway property. The seizure list which was

prepared was also duly proved by the prosecution. The defence has failed to come out with a case of false implication in view of the overwhelming

oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Recovery of railway materials from the shop-cumgodown belonging to the

petitioner has been proved beyond doubt and therefore the same leads to an irresistible conclusion about the complicity of the petitioner in the

commission of the offence.

The learned trial court therefore had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, which was also affirmed in

appeal. The same is hereby sustained. Â

However with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been facing rigours of the criminal case since

1997 and he has remained in custody for some period. On consideration of the said facts, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is

modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner.  Â

This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in  the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner. Â

 Â