VYAS TEWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Vyas Tewari who' has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The sentence awarded is fine in a sum of Rs. 1,500/ -. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having sera tinised the material before me, I find myself unable to maintain the conviction of the applicant.

(2.) THE applicant was employed as a Pump Fitter in the electric shop of the Loco Workshop of the North-Eastern Railway at Gorakhpur. The charge against the applicant was that on the 1st October. 1969, at about 1-30 p. m. . when the applicant was coming out of the workshop through a gate, not meant for the purpose, suspicion of Paras Ram (PW. 2 ). a Guard at the date, was aroused and the applicant's person was searched as a result whereof property belonging to the railway consisting of a large number of pieces of brass having a total weight of about 10 kgs. were found in or about the underwear the applicant was wearing.

(3.) THE applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged false prosecution due to enmity. In his statement under Section 342. Cr. PC he alleged that P. W. 2 Paras Ram had enmity with him and had got him prosecuted and the witnesses had given, false evidence as a result of pressure brought upon them by the Railway Protection Force. The evidence at the trial bearing on the factual question about the alleged recovery consisted of statements made by P. W. 2 Paras Ram. P. W. 3 Prem Chand. P. W. 4 Vish-wanath Singh and P. W, 7 Alakh Deo Singh. The case was investigated by Sri R. K. Nandi who was Gate Sergeant in the Workshop. The said Sri Nandi was examined as the first prosecution witness at the trial. He deposed that during investigation he had examined the witnesses examined at the trial, had recorded their statements in writing and had also obtained the signatures of the witnesses at the end of their statements. In regard to the witnesses mentioned earlier the position is that, except for Paras Ram P. W. 2, the attention, of each of the other three witnesses, viz. . Prem Chand P. W. 3. Vishwanath Singh P. W. 4 and Alakh Deo Singh P. W. 7 was, during examination-in-chief itself, drawn to the fact that they had made statements before Sri Nandi who had recorded those statements in writing, and their signature had been obtained on those statements. The principal contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that the procedure that obtained during investigation of the matter by Sri R. K. Nandi P-W. 1 was not authorised by law and that the evidence given by the witnesses could not be safely acted upon as most of them, if not all, appear to have been put under the influence that since they had made certain signed statements to the investigating officer, they were bound to repeat the same at the trial, This conten-, tion appears to be well founded.