CHHABINATH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Chhabinath and Kishori Yadav against their- conviction under Section 3 of the R-P., Act and the sentence of one year's R.I- and a fine of Rs.500 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (N. R.) on 5-8-1989 and upheld by the IV Addl-Sessions Judge, Varanasi on 23-11-1990 in appeal.

(2.) THE short point argued by Sri C-K- Parekh, learned counsel for the appli­cants is that in the instant case the prose­cution evidence falls short of proving that the alleged three bags of fertilisers belonged to the Railways and in this con­nection he has relied upon the statement of P. W. 4 -and P-W.6 who are respectively the alleged owner of the railway consign­ment and 1500 bags of fertilisers and the goods clerk had delivered the said consignment to one Lakshmi Transport Co.

(3.) THE other points argued are that while Kishori Yadav is said to be going along with Chhabinath, he was not arrested on the spot. The prosecution alleges that Chhabinath had run away- It is argued that he cannot be said to be in possession of the railway property - It was further argued that so far as Chhabinath is con­cerned, he was said to be carrying two bags of fertilizer on his cycle. The cycle was, however, not produced in court, It was further argued that no member of the public had been made witness of recovery and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution case has been