ISHWAR SARAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. S. Jetley for the applicants in revision and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

(2.) By means of this revision-applicants have challenged the order dated 28-11-2000 of A.C.J.M. II, Saharanpur rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the applicants and thereby refusing to discharge the applicants. Subsequently the learned Magistrate has framed charge under S. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (in short R.P.U.P. Act) by the order dated 15-12-2000.

(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that since in the present case property which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants was not produced before the Court below, there was no possibility of the case resulting into conviction and in support of his submission reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court, Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State, reported in 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 109. I have gone through the said decision. In peculiar facts and circumstances of that particular case the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the material placed on record of that case showed that accused would be acquitted and trial would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of Court. The facts of the present case are entirely different. It has rightly been urged by learned A.G.A. that the occasion to produce case property would arise only when the prosecution witnesses are produced and further cross-examined.