TARA CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARA Chand, a machanic in the Central Loco Workshop, Lucknow lias directed this revision against his conviction for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, upon the rinding that on 2nd May, 1970, he was found to have been in possession of five washed out plugs which were railway property and were reasonably suspected of having been stolen. The recovery of the property was made from the search of his person carried on by S. P. Sharma (P. W. 1), Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, and Ram Singh (P. W. 4), a Constable of the Railway Protection Force, in the presence of Buddhoo (P. W. 5) when the accused after completing his day's duty was coming out of the main gate of the Loco Workshop. As found by the two courts below, the plugs were found underneath the langot which the :iccused was wearing; he was also wearing an underwear and a pant. With the recovered articles, of which the recovery memo. Ext. Ka-1 was prepared on the spot, he was taken to the Loco-Out-post where the sealed articles were deposited by P. W. 1 and an entry thereof was made in the General Diary at 7. 55 P. M. (Vide Ext. Ka-3 ). The recovered articles were tested by the Railway Expert Iqbal Singh (P. W. 2) on 3rd July and, as runs the opinion of the witness, these articles were railway property and tallied with specification Nos. FX-451 and FX-482. The plug;, it was observed by the witness, could not be made as a marketable commodity. They were in serviceable condition and could rot be taken out of the Loco Gate without a Gate Pass.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate, placing reliance upon the evidence of the above-mentioned witnesses, returned a finding that the revisionist was in possession of the stolen railway property and that since he had not shown that the property came into his possession lawfully, he was guilty of the offence under Section 3. The plea of the accused that he had been falsely implicated was repelled by both the Courts and the evidence, which he adduced through D. W. 1 Ram Kheliiwan that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of P. W. 1, was disbelieved. Having regard to the fact that the value of the stolen articles did not exceed Rs. 50/ -. the learned Magistrate took a lenient view of the matter and sentenced him to a fine of Rx 200/- only. The learned Sessions Judge'ias confirmed the order passed tiy the learned Magistrate.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the accused has come up in revision before me.