(1.) ON 12. 11. 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge had discharged the petitioner Ravi Kant in a complaint which had been filed against 13 persons including the present petitioner under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ). The court had held that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner in the absence of which the issuance of the process for summoning the petitioner by the Trial Court was a bad order and was accordingly set aside. The Trial Court had summoned the petitioner on this complaint vide its order dated 24. 12. 2001.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 2. 7. 2001, the Vigilance department of the Railway Board received an information that railway servants of electric loco shed Tuglakabad of Western Railway will make excess delivery of M/s Turning/boring in connivance with the party purchaser. Acting upon this information Mahesh Kumar Inspector investigation, Vigilance Railway board, Sh. Vishok Gupta, Chief Vigilance Inspector Northern Railway, Sh. Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Senior Vigilance Inspector Northern Railway came to the RPF Post of Tuglakabad. They Were accompanied with HC RPF dharam Vir Meena; they reached Jeewan Dharam Kanta, Madan Pur kuadar. At about 6 PM, three trucks loaded when turning and boring arrived at the said dharam kanta for weightment; these trucks left at about 6. 35 pm; Dharamvir Singh and Vishok Gupta followed them and stopped at a distance of half a kilometer. In the meanwhile Mahesh Kumar and Mahesh chander Gutpa arrived at the Jeewan dharam kanta and demanded the documents regarding the turning and boring loaded in the trucks. The present petitioner i. e. Ravi Kant who was the Assistant Controller of Stores (W. R.) Tuglakabad (ACOS) was standing at the spot along with Raghubar dayal, Divisional Store Keeper, G. N. Gupta, Stock Verifier, R. L. Gupta, si/rfp and Kadir of M/s Saboo Ruby Traders. Sale delivery issue note and the weightment slips of the dharam kanta were produced. These documents were seized by the vigilance team; they reflected that 6070 kgs. of turning and boring had been loaded in the three trucks; on the weightment of the material these trucks were found to be loaded with 5465 kgs. of excess turning and boring. The aforestated material was seized.
(3.) THESE allegations had become the subject matter of the complaint dated 24. 12. 2001 on which the summons had been issued on the same day. Petitioner had been arrayed as accused No. 12 in the complaint.