STATE Vs. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused, who had been charged under Section 3(a) of Railway Property Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on informa tion, after obtaining search warrant, P.W. 1, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Madurai, searched the house of the accused, and it was found that there in the house the accused was in possession of two bushes and one ladder belonging to the railways. The accused was chage sheeted. The accused denied the charge. The learned Magistrate who tried the case on consid eration of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the State has not proved that the said bushes M.Os. 1 and 2 and the ladder - M.O. 3 belonged to the railways. Therefore, he acquit ted the accused.

(3.) Now in the appeal it is contended that the finding that it has not been proved that the M.Os. are belonging to the railways is erroneous and it is against the evidence. In this case, admittedly the M.Os. do not bear any railway markings as they are usually found in the railways properties. As regards M.Os. 1 and 2 bushes they are completely bereft of any markings, but whereas the ladder M.O. 3 contains a marking in paint indicating that it is railway property. According to the Court below, it cannot be ruled out that the said mark ings in paint could have been done subsequent to the recovery. The prosecution has also marked Ex. P. 3 as the confession statement of the accused wherein the accused has admitted possession of the said M.Os. However, he has also stated that these M.Os. were purchased by him from a per son, whom he could not identify, 10 years ago, on payment of Rs. 30.00, Now, it cannot be said that this version of the accused must be false. There is no evidence let in by the prosecution as to how these properties came into the possession of the accused. Therefore, we have to take it that the claim of the accused that he purchased the M.Os. ten years ago on payment is possible. As stated above, there was no making of the railways on the M.Os. Hence, no knowledge can be imputed to the accused that at the time of purchase, he knew that they were railways properties. Therefore, the only conclusion that one can come to is he was in possession of the properties lawfully. This being the case, he cannot be said to have committed any offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Rail ways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court cannot be interfered with. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.