STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANKAR MAHALING KALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The accused, who was himself a Railway Police constable, was alleged to have been apprehended by a Rakshak of the Railway Protection Force named Deonarain and one Vasant Ghag, Assistant Goods Clerk while collecting tea powder in a bag from an open wagon on a platform at Kalyan. Curiously enough, neither the said Deonarain nor the said Ghag have been examined in the trial Court. Fortunately for the prosecution, the accused has, however, admitted in the trial Court that he had collected tea leaves in a plastic bag and removed the same from the wagon. His case in the satement, however, was that finding the wagon open and the contents of a bag scattered and the plastic bag also there, he suspected foul play and collected the scattered tea leaves in that rexine bag in order to take them to the office of the Railway Protection Force, when an R.P.f watchman pounced upon him. It is true that unlike the position in other criminal offences , as far a section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, is concerned, once a person is found in possession of railway property, it is he who has to prove that he came into such possession lawfully. The lower Court has accepted the explanation given by the accused for having collected the tea leaves in the rexine bag. The prosecution sought to rely on certain statements made by the accused soon after he was apprehended, but those statements do not militate against the story of the accused. There is no reason for not accepting the version of the accused of the incident as there is nothing in the prosecution evidence to discredit the same. After all, it was a part of his duty to detect any offence in relation to goods in a railway wagon, and what he did is perfectly in consonance with that duty. I see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court. Under those circumstances, I confirm the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and dismiss the appeal. Bail bonds cancelled.