SEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1 Salem. In appeal the conviction and the sentence were confirmed.

(2.) ON 14th November, 1978, at about 12-30 a.m., Sekar, the revision petitioner was found moving in suspicious circumstances on the railway platform at Salem Junction. P.W. 1, P.C. Dharu, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force was on duty sat the platform. He stopped the accused on suspicion and wanted to know as to what the gunny bag which the revision petitioner was carrying on his shoulder, contained. As no satisfactory reply was given, P.W. 1 seized the gunny bag from him, which contained railway marks. The leather bag which the revision petitioner was carrying was also searched and it was found to contain six cardboard boxes containing filter elements. There was also a chalan, Exhibit P-1, in it. The revision petitioner was not able to account for possession of these articles which are railway properties. P.W. 1 then recovered M.O. 1 gunny bag, and M.O. 2, the filter elements, under a mahazar, Exhibit P-2 attested by witnesses. A case was registered in Crime No. 30 of 1978 under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. A statement was also recorded. P.W. 1 examined witnesses and laid the charge sheet.

(3.) THE fact that M.Os. 1 and 2 were railway properties admits of no doubt. THE evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 will prove that M.O. 1 was booked at Karur and was unloaded at Erode for onward transmission. So also the evidence of P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 shows that M.O. 2 was booked at Hyderabad and unloaded at Erode. THE revision petitioner stayed at Erode in a lodge and Exhibit P-5, the receipt, proves that Exhibit P-4, the ticket seized from the revision petitioner under a mahazar by P.W. 1 shows that bet has travelled by an express train from Erode to Salem on 14th November, 1978. THE evidence of P.W. 2 shows that M.Os. 1 and 2 were recovered from the revision petitioner by P.W. 1 on 14th November, 1978 at 12-30 a.m. THEre is therefore overwhelming evidence that Mos. 1 and 2 which are, railway properties were found in the possession of the revision petitioner on the night of 14th November, 1978. That apart, the revision petitioner has confessed having committed theft of these articles, M.Os. 1 and 2, in his statement, Exhibit P-3 which is clearly admissible in evidence. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the railway properties, M.Os. 1 and 2, were found in the possession of the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner was not able to account for his possession. Sitting in revision, I do not see any reason to interfere with this finding of fact. THE conviction therefore under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act is correct and is confirmed.