AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.—This is State Appeal against the judgment, of acquittal in C.C. No. 1240/1996 dated 14.8.2002 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore.
Inspector RPF/Southern Railway. Bangalore filed a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an offence punishable u/s 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
Case of the prosecution is that, a goods train No. CSDR/Spl. arrived at Channasandra Railway Station at about 1.40 a.m. on 30th September 1995 containing steel channels of Steel Authorities India Limited as per invoice No. 4/48 RR No. 721127 dated 8.9.1995 weighing 53.260 kgs. Since there was no packing, channels were loaded unevenly and no paint mark was also made. On 7.10.1995 at the request was made by the Steel Authorities India Limited, weighment delivery was granted, however, Railway Authorities found shortage of 106 pieces of steel channels weighing 17.110 kgs. valued at Rs. 2,40.000/-. In this regard, the Inspector. Protection Force. Bangalore Cantonment registered a case of theft and an enquiry was taken up. It is alleged that, M/s. Kuppuswamy Steel stock yard, who took delivery of steel channels has committed the theft. In this regard. PW-5 S. Kotaiah and one of his staff PW-18 along with other staff went to M/s. Kuppuswamy Steel stock yard on 18.11.1995, conducted search based on search warrant and found 20 cut pieces of steel channels. Accused No. 1 was present at the yard. He did not produce any valid document for the said steel channels and admitted the theft of 17 tonnes of steel channels brought, by them under a gate pass issued for 15 tonnes. It is also admitted that steel channels were sold for Rs. 2,00,000/- to the unknown persons. On the basis of the material collected, the charge sheet was filed and the accused were tried.
Prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18 and marked Exs.P1 to P72 and M.Os.1 to 20. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence held that, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, and by its judgment has acquitted the accused. Against the order of acquittal, State has filed this appeal.
Heard Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, learned Counsel for the respondents - accused and Sri. B. Balakrishna, learned Government Pleader for the State.
The material witnesses examined in this case are, PWs-1 to 5 and PW-18. PW-1 is the complainant, who alleged shortage of steel channels and suspected the theft. However, in the cross-examination, he admits that the alleged theft steel channels are available in the open market and he cannot say the property shown to him are the property of Steel Authorities India Limited. PVV-2 is a person working as Pointsman, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3 is a joint complainant along with PW-1. In his cross-examination, he also admits that, similar steel channels are available in the open market. PW-3 except stating that, he gave a joint statement with PW-1, he has not stated anything. PW-4.-mahazar witness, who prepared the search list of the steel from the possession of the accused and alleges that steel was seized from the possession of the accused. PW-5 is a material witness, who conducted raid in the place of the accused. He alleges that, on the basis of the information, he went to the premises of the accused on 18.11.1995. recorded the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, seized the articles wroth of Rs. 2.00,000/- (15 tonnes of steel), gave the acknowledgment and further recorded the statement of the witnesses and completed the investigation. PW-6 staled to be a person employed by accused for unloading is examined and he has not supported the case of the prosecution Similarly, PWs-8 and 9 have also not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs-4 and 8 - mahazar witnesses hove not supported the ease of the prosecution.
Whole case depends on the identification of the steel. The allegation that, steel found in the possession of the accused was no supported by proper voucher, there is no other material produced by the prosecution to prove that the steel stolen from the Railway is the steel in possession of the accused. The material witnesses examined in this connection are PWs-4 and 8 stated to be the mahazar witnesses. However, both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even PWs-1 and 3, who are the authorities of the Steel Authorities India Limited have admitted that the steel sewed from the possession of the accused is easily available in the open market and they could not identify the steel as belonging to them. No doubt, PW-5 has seized the steel, but once the identification of the steel is not made out, if there is no evidence to show that the steel found in possession of the accused is the steel stolen from the railway yard, there is no nexus to implicate the accused for the alleged offence. All other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is hardly any evidence to implicate these accused for the alleged offence. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence has acquitted the accused. Even on re-appreciation of the entire evidence I do not find there is any reason to interfere with the said Judgment.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.