State vs K.V. Sridhar

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The appeal coming on for orders as regards payment of process the same is addressed on merits.

It is to be seen that the case against the respondent--accused was initiated at the instance of the Railway Protection Force Police (RPF Police). It was alleged that on 17.5.2001, between 11.45 hours to 14.30 hours, when the RPF Police had conducted a search of a scrap godown at No. C2, Premier Film Studio, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore, the accused were found in unlawful possession of 90 RBG Rail pieces numbering 16, of different sizes valued at Rs. 64,566/-. On inquiry, it was learnt that the accused were not in a position to produce any bill or voucher or give any satisfactory answer for possession of the Railway property, suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained from the Railways and thereby they had committed an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''RPUP Act'', for brevity), and a charge sheet was accordingly filed and after taking cognizance, the process was issued. The charges for the aforesaid offences were framed and read over and explained to the accused, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution had tendered evidence of PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked several exhibits, apart from the material objects and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court below has framed the following points for its consideration:-

"1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 17.5.2004 at about 11.45 to 14.30 hours, at Iron Scrap Godown No. 2, Premier Film Studio Complex, Jayalkakshmipuram, Mysore, the accused persons were found in unlawful possession of 16 numbers of 90 R.B.G. Rail pieces of different sizes, valued Rs. 64,566/- without having any bill or voucher for possession of the same reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained form Railway thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 3(a) RP (UP) Act?"

The Court below has answered the said point in the negative and had accordingly acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The court below, while addressing the case of the prosecution, has primarily held that notwithstanding that the properties in question have been shown as properties generally held by the Railway department, there was no material on record to disclose that such material had been lost or stolen from the Railways and thereafter it was traced to the possession of the accused. On the other hand, the defence was to the effect that the accused had purchased the said goods at an auction conducted by M/s. Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, in terms of Exhibit D.1 and therefore, the manner in which the seller had acquired the same was not known to them. Consequently, the court below has held that in the absence of any prima facie material'', to demonstrate that the goods in question had been lost by the Railways in the first instance, the possession of the goods which is reasonably explained by the accused, could not be held to be stolen and therefore has negated the case of the prosecution.

The State has urged several grounds, namely, that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that the materials were Railway property and that the reasoning of the court below was not sufficient to hold that the accused respondents had discharged the burden and in the face of the evidence of independent witnesses, who have corroborated the case of the prosecution and the admitted circumstance that the seized articles were certainly Railway property, the court could not have placed reliance and could not have given credence to Exhibit D.1 to D.4, on the basis of which, the respondents have sought to explain the circumstance, under which they had come into possession of the articles. As the reasoning of the court below is sound and reasonable, there is no warrant for interference and the appeal is rejected.