RAMDEO JAGDEO BHARADWAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 10-11-1975, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dismissing Criminal Revision Application and confirming the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T. Bombay, dated 21-7-1976, convicting the petitioner of the offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentencing the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The few facts which require to be narrated are that on 19-4-1974, Muchran Kushwaha a Railway Rakshak Badge No. 944 and another Rakshak Badge No. 1199, named Lalta Prasad, were on detection duty at Kurla in plain clothes from 20 hours of 8-4-1974 to 8 hours of 19-4-1974. While Mulcharan was watching OHE Workshop, Kurla, he saw at a distance of about 15 feet from platform No. 2, one person having a bag in his left hand and a bundle in his right hand. Another person was seen waiting on the gate of OHE Workshop. Mulcharan suspected some foul-play and apprehended that person and blew his whistle. Hearing the whistle Lalta Prasad came to the spot. Mulcharan took that person in to custody and deputed Lalta Prasad to inform Shri K.D. Tiwari Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Force, Kurla. On receipt of information S.I. Tiwari came to the workshop and found the petitioner in custody of Mulcharan. After carrying out necessary formalities a search of the person of the petitioner was taken under a panchnama. From the packet of the petitioner, a bunch of keys and other articles were found. The petitioner was found carrying 7 pieces of copper wires weighing about 18.05 Kgs. and the same were seized under another panchnama. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner along with another was put up for trial before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T.

(3.) At the hearing it appears that the main attack on the prosecution evidence was about the unreliability of the panch-witness, Rajaram Haddar who had earlier acted as a panch in 50 to 60 cases. The learned Magistrate was not impressed by that infirmity in the prosecution cases and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt. He accordingly convicted petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.