STATE OF U P Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal has been proposed, under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, with an application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by Court of Special-Judge, EC Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2001 Noor Mohammad vs. State of U.P. , wherein the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by Court of Judicial Magistrate, North Eastern Railway, Bareilly, has been altered and convicted persons have been acquitted of charge of offence punishable, under Section 3 of Railway Property Unauthorized Occupation Act, with this contention that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it, thereby, judgment of acquittal is a result of perversity whereas, learned Trial Magistrate has appreciated facts and law and has passed impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence made therein.

(2.) An appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. was filed by convict appellants against judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 17.7.2001, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (N.E.R.), Bareilly and it was transferred to above Court of Special-Judge, EC Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly as Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2001 Noor Mohammad and others vs. State of U.P. wherein, learned First Appellate Judge passed impugned judgment of acquittal against it.

(3.) Learned AGA has argued that there was a case of recovery of Railway property from place of occurrence kept under 4 gunny bags and it was seen to be thrown by two persons who were consistently identified by the employee of Railway Protection Force. They were Noor Mohammad, Jawahar and one other accused person had also thrown bag having railway property in it and he was subsequently identified in identification parade, hence, there was a huge recovery of property of Railway and witnesses have identified the same during trial whereupon, learned Magistrate had passed judgment of conviction with order of sentence. But First Appellate Judge failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it and on the basis of perversity, passed impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, this appeal with above prayer for grant of leave for filing this appeal.