C.SIGAMANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Revisions are directed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.116 of 2018 dtd. 28/6/2019 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.116 of 2005 dtd. 25/10/2018 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.1, (Railway) Cuddaore District, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (herein after referred to as 'the RPUP Act').

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 24/2/2004, on receipt of the report, the respondent and his team members had conducted secret inspection with regard to stealing of railway properties on 19/3/2004 at about 1.00 a.m. When they reached the place of occurrence, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-W-9765 was proceeded forward from east to west at cross road, in between Meppuliyur and Poovanur. They stopped the vehicle and on enquiry, they found that the accused 1 to 4 were in the lorry and they were found in possession of railway iron rail -20 numbers, indane gas cylinder - 1, oxygen cylinder -1, hose pipe - 1, gas cutter-1. But they had no receipt or authorization for the possession of those properties which belongs to railway. All the four persons were arrested and on mahazar, all the railway properties were seized. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody and registered the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2004 for the offence under Sec. 3(a) of RPUP Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.CNo.116 of 2005.

(3.) On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.7. On the side of the accused, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.7 and no documents were marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found them guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(a) of RPUP Act and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons preferred appeals and the first appellate Court partly allowed the appeals and modified the sentence imposed by the trial Court from three years to two years. Hence, the present revision petitions.