STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANTI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the most anomalous contentions has been raised by the Public Prosecutor in this criminal appeal against the accused. A mere statement of facts is enough to disclose the anomalous character of the contention.

(2.) The three respondents before me were the three accused in the trial Court. They were prosecuted for the offence of being in possession of railway property namely, bearing plates. The allegation, therefore, was that they had committed offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The case of the prosecution in short was that accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before me had stolen the railway property and had sold the same to accused No. 3, who is respondent No. 3 before me. A charge-sheet was filed by the police against the three accused, charge was framed against them by the learned Magistrate and evidence was led by the prosecution. No independent evidence could be adduced by the prosecution to prove that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had at any particular time committed theft of the railway property in question. All that the prosecution tried to prove was that accused Nos. 1 and 2 admitted and confessed before the police that they have stolen the railway property namely, the bearing plates, and had sold the same to accused No. 3. Certain property of the nature of bearing plates was recovered from the possession of accused No. 3. The property did not bear any sign to show that is belonged to the railway. Accused No. 3 denied that the property recovered from his possession was the railway property. He did not admit that the property was purchased by him from accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 denied having sold the property to accused No. 3. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove :

(3.) Having regard to this conduct of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate held that commission of no offence whatsoever was established by the prosecution either by accused Nos. 1 and 2 or by accused No. 3. Hence, he passed an order of acquittal in favour of all the three accused. The present appeal is filed against the said order of acquittal. The appeal was filed and was admitted. Notices were ordered to be issued to all the three accused. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2, that is to say, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not served with the notice of the appeal by the Government at all and ultimately an order had to be passed by this Court dismissing the appeal against original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for non prosecution. When the appeal reached for hearing before me, it was an appeal against respondent No. 3 (original accused No. 3) only.