MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam in C.C.No.41 of 2009 dated 08.09.2015 confirmed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet in Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2015 dated 29.04.2016.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as a Senior Track man in between the Mahendravadi and Thalangai Railway Station. On 01.09.2008 at about 23.10 hours, when the Inspector of RPF., along with S.I., of Police, RPF., were watching in and around the Mahendravadi railway station, they noticed that the accused was coming from east to west direction, with a white colour polythine bag containing 04 nos of black coloured insulated aluminium cable length about 2 feets each and 07 nos. of Pandrol clips in a suspicious manner and when he intercepted and questioned about the contents in the polythine bag, no satisfactory reply was given and on physical verification, it was found that the accused was in unlawful possession of the above said railway properties. Hence, the respondent police registered a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(a)RP(UP)Act 1966, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.41 of 2009 After the trial proceedings, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 3(a)RP(UP)Act 1966 to pay Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment. Against which the accused has filed an appeal before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore in Crl.A.No.58 of 2015. After an elaborate enquiry, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal and by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam. As against the order of dismissal, the revision petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no material objects were recovered in the presence of the independent witnesses and there is no evidence to show that the properties were exclusively belongs to the railway department and also the prosecution has not proved the case that they recovered the possession from the revision petitioner. Therefore, the respondent police filed a false case against the accused. The respondent has not proved his case beyond any reasonable doubt. Both the Courts below have failed to consider these aspects, which warrants interference.