(1.) State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No. 24 of 1990 wherein the accused were tried for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) On 26.2.1989, Ganpatsinh Laxmansinh, PW. 1 while discharging his duties, was conveyed information by Sub -Inspector Maniram of Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as "the RPF") that goods belonging to the Railways are lying at a place situated in Khadkivad. The officers along with city Police Sub -Inspector Desai reached the house of accused No. 2, who was not present there, but at the relevant time, accused No. 1, who happens to be the wife of accused No. 2 was present. Railway properties were found in the house. Statement of accused were recorded under the Act. After completing the investigation, complaint came to be filed against the accused. The Trial Court held that mere possession of articles manufactured by private firms for the use of railway administration cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as Railway property as described in Section 2(d) of the Act, relying on a decision reported in 1973 Criminal Law Journal 1706. The Trial Court further held that there is no evidence that the muddamal article was found from the custody of the accused. The Trial Court further held that looking to the complaint and evidence, muddamal even if found from the possession of the accused, as the complainant has failed to prove that the stolen articles belong to the Railways, the accused cannot be convicted.
(3.) Ganpatsinh Laxmansinh, PW. 1, in his testimony stated that accused No. 1 was present and on searching the 'vada', brake locks and fittings belonging to the Railways in all 1700 kgs. approximately, were found. In the cross -examination, no question is put to the witness as to how he states that the goods seized were of Railways.