SAKHIRCHAND DHAVAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by A-10 to A-13 and A-15 in CC. No. 122/78 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Waltair, to quash the charges framed against them under Sections 3 (a) and 4 of the Railway Proparty (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, The 15th accused is A.K. Corporation Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its Head Office is at Calcutta and its branch at Visakhapatnam, It is running a Mini Steel Plant at Visakhapatnam. A-7 and A-10 to A-14 are its Directors. A-7 is a resident Director and the power of attorney bolder of the Company. A-10 to A-13 are non-resident Directors. They are residing at Calcutta. A-14 another Director was a resident of Visakhapatnam, but he died after the complaint was filed.

(2.) A complaint was filed against these accused and some other accused by the Railway Protection Force in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Waltair. The gist of the complaint is as follows:- On 16th October, 1977 at about 11-30 P.M. the Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force at Visakhapatnam along with his staff caught A-1, A-2 and A-3 while they were in unlawful possession of the railway property near Waltair Marshalling yard. During enquiry, A-1 confessed that he along with A-2 and A-3 kept some stolen railway property in the shop of Janata Trading Corporation at Gnanapuram for sale and led the Sub-Inspector to Janata Trading Corporation. There, A 4, A-5 and A 6 were present inside the shop. They were found handling the Railway property and other material. On seeing the Sub Inspector, A-6 managed to escape from the shop. When questioned by the SubInspector, A-4 and A-5 failed to produce any receipt or authority for possession of the Railway property. Then the Sub-Inspe.ctor seized the property from the custody of A-4 and A-5. A 9 is the owner of that shop. He also failed to produce any receipt or authority for possession of the property. A-4 and A-S confessed to the Sub-Inspector and led the Railway Protection Force staff to A.K. Corporation Limited and painted out some iron material and stated that the lot was sold by them to A.K. Corporation Limited (A-15). The lot contained 41 items of Railway Property. A-7 is the whole-time Director and A-8 is the Manager of that Corporation. They are said to be present in the premises of the Corporation. They failed to produce any receipt 01 authority for possession of Railway Property within the premises of the Corporation. The property was seized by the Railway Protection Force, and after investigation a complaint was filed. A-10 to A-13 and A-14, were impleaded as accused in the complaint on the ground that they are the Directors of the Company (A-15), and they were sharing the huge profits derived by the Company.

(3.) After examination of five witnesses, the learned Magistrate heard the arguments for the purpose of framing charges. The petitioners pleaded that they should be discharged on the ground that there was no prima facie case against them. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 30th April, 1981; rejected their plea and framed charges against them under sections 3 (a) and 4 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. A-10 to A-13 and A-15 have filed this petition to quash the charges framed against them.