KASHMIRI LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave, the appellant challenges his conviction under Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act 1955.

(2.) The Act is a measure providing for punishment of persons in unlawful possession of railway stores who cannot satisfactorily account how they came by the same. By Section 2 "railway stores" are defined to mean any article - (a) which is the property of any Railway Administration; and (b) which is used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. Section 3 defines the offence as also the measure of punishment therefor. It reads :

(3.) Before any one can be charged with the offence under Section 3, it must be shown that he was in possession of railway stores which by the definition of section does not include all articles which are the property of a railway administration but only those which are used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. Mere unlawful possession of the property of any railway administration is not an offence. The prosecution must also prove that the articles were being actually used or were intended to be used for by the railway. Thus any article which is the property of a railway administration but which has been discarded or rejected for further use would be outside the definition of railway stores. Railway stores may be new or old and an offence may be committed in respect of stores of either kind. If the railway administration has no further use of them, be they new or old as in the case where they have become unserviceable or outmoded, no person can be charged with an offence under Section 3 in respect thereof. It is only when the articles satisfy the definition of railway stores that the prosecution can be successfully launched against a person in unlawful possession thereof. Even in such a case the prosecution must first adduce evidence to show that there was cause for reasonable suspicion of the stores being stolen or obtained unlawfully. It is only when the burden in respect of this is discharged by the prosecution that the onus shifts to the accused to account satisfactorily of his possession of the same. He may, for instance, show that he had purchased the property in open marked where goods of this kind are usually sold or that he had bought them from some one bona fide in the behalf that the vendor had lawfully obtained the same.