STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SRI. RAMAIAH A. LINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Section 3(a) of Railway Properties (Unlawful possession) Act of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on a trial held by Economic Offences Court at Bangalore. The appellant claims that on 16.12.2008 at about 19.00 hours, when the complainant and his staff were on confidential watch duty at Loco Entrance near Watchtower, Bangalore, the respondent was moving in a suspicious manner and on enquiry and search, it was found that he was concealing in the inner bannian the role of Copper T Tube about 5 to 5 1/2 meters and 2 kgs of locos without any marks valued at Rs. 650/ -. He was apprehended and the properties were seized. On a complaint in this regard, the investigation was held and a chargesheet was laid against the respondent for the charge under Section 3(a) of the Act. In a trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6, got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P29 and Mos. 1 to 4. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. No defence evidence was led. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties, has acquitted the respondent for the said charge. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the State.

(2.) I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

(3.) RATHER , it is impractical or impossible for a person to conceal a tube which is about 5 to 5 1/2 meters with 21/2 kg of other instruments in the bannian. It is for this reason that the Trial Court did not accept the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and granted an order of acquittal. PW3 - Anand is the Jr. Engineer who has issued certificate (Ex. P9) and so far as seizure is concerned, his evidence is of no help to the prosecution. When improper version has been put forth by the prosecution, rather it is difficult to accept the same. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the Trial Court cannot be disturbed. The scrutiny of evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in the context of aforesaid principle, I do not find any justifiable grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order of acquittal of respondent for the said charge. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. As the appeal is heard on merits, IA.I/2013 filed for condonation of delay is disposed of as unnecessary.