STATE Vs. SHIVAKUMAR JAINARAYAN GUPTA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 26.06.2006 passed by the JMFC Court-I, Hubli in C.C.No.2266/1996, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the South Central Hubli Division of Railways auctioned six condemned railway wagons and accused No.6 was the successful bidder in the said public auction. The said lot is numbered as AGL21/K and the same was kept in Amargol Railway yard as per the delivery order No.UBL/K-131 dated 20.03.2005. The accused No.6 after purchasing the said wagons which are double wagons, appointed accused No.1 as his power of attorney holder to take delivery of the auctioned railway wagons from the scrap yard of Amargol Railway Station. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the Railway Officials, who were appointed to oversee the delivery of the auctioned goods to accused No.1 correctly and also they were authorised to issue the challens. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.03.1995, when the accused No.1 took the delivery of the aforesaid lot, which contains only six doubled wagons, after taking auctioned property, the accused took two extra M.G. truck bogies with wheel sets on 05.04.1995 and loaded the same in a lorry bearing registration No.CAS-4321 and again in the lorry being registration No.CAS-4231 on 07.04.1995 from the Stock of M.G. Truck bogies kept at Amargol Railway Station. The said two wagons were taken discretely and transported the same to Madras along with the purchased wagons and sold to unknown person. Subsequently, it was disclosed that two wagons were missing along with the six wagons, which were already taken as per the auction sale. When accused No.2 went to the railway station at Amargol, it was disclosed that two bogies containing 8 numbers of wheel sets were missing. On suspicion the accused No.1 was arrested on 11.08.1995 and on the basis of the information given by the accused No.1, it was disclosed that accused No1 had committed the theft of two truck bogies with extra wheels, which did not pertain to his lot and thereafter loaded the same in a vehicle No.CAS-4321 and CAS-4231 and transported the same. He has confessed that accused Nos.2 to 5 had witnessed while loading the materials from the railway yard. Based on the information given by the accused, investigation is conducted and charge sheet came to be filed against all the six accused persons. During the pendency of the trial, the accused No.6 had died and accused No.3 was not found and a case in C.C.No.1398/2007 is registered against accused No.3 with a split up charge sheet. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have faced the trail.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17, got marked Exs.P1 to P54 and produced MO1-sample railway material. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Magistrate was pleased to hold that the prosecution is not able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and recorded an order of acquittal. The State has filed this appeal challenging the said order of acquittal.