HARI MAHESWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 5-1-2001 passed in Crl. A.No.387 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/ A-1 for the offence under Section 3(a) of R.P. (U.P) Act (for short Act) passed in C.C.191 of 1995 on the file of XII th the Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows: A-7 P. Bhaskar, A-8 R. Shiva, and A-9 R. Balu committed theft of railway steel sleepers from Miryalguda railway area and brought the same in a truck bearing No. AAH 9387 driven by A-10 K. Peddules @ Peddi Raju, Hyderabad. They unloaded the material at a deserted place and tried to secure a buyer, and since no one came forward to buy the material they abandoned the material at Shastripuram. A-4 Munir Alum found the material weighing about 3 tonnes and brought the same to Kishanbagh by a lorry bearing No. ATR 2054 driven by A-5 Md. Ismail. He cut the material into pieces with gas cutter and sold the same to A-3 Syed Ghouse. The petitioner/A-1 Hari Maheswari proprietor of Sharing Syndicate, Moosapet, Hyderabad purchased the material weighing about 3.5 tonnes from A-3 Syed Ghouse and stored the material in the premises of Sharing Syndicate, Moosapet, Hyderabad. P.W.1. V. Satyanarayana received credible information on 26-3-95 that the petitioner/A-1 stored the railway property unlawfully. He surprised the business premises of petitioner/A-1 and seized 611 cut pieces (MOI) and two full length of railway steel sleepers (MO2) under the cover of Ex.P-1 panchanama in the presence of P.W.5 B.S.N. Raju and P.Sudarsan. He got MO.1 and 2 weighted at Parati Weigh Bridge, Hyderabad. The material seized from the possession of petitioner/A-1 weighed 3,250 kgs. P.W.I presented Ex.P-3 report to the Inspector, RPF, Sanathnagar. P.W.2 K. Srinivasa Rao, SI, RPF, Sanathnagar received Ex.P-3 report and registered a case in Cr.No.1/95 under the Act. He effected arrest of A-2 and seized Rs.33,000/- from his possession under the cover of Ex.P-6 panchanama on 30-3-95. He searched the house bearing No.B Class, 272 Charkandi on 1-4-96 at 4.30 p.m. and seized MO.3 fish plate and MO.4 fish plate bolts, MO.5 steel keys (165) under the cover of Ex.P-10 panchanama and arrested A-3. He effected arrest of A-4 on 2-4-95 and seized lorry bearing No. ATR 2054 on the same day he arrested A-5. P.W.3 R.P. Singh took up investigation on 6-4-95. He arrested A-7 to A-9 at R.T.C. Bus Complex, Nalgonda on 16-4-95 and seized M.Os."6 to 8 (ACP plates) from their possession under the cover of Ex.P-19 panchanama. He also effected the arrest of A-10 and A-11 who are driver and cleaner of DCM Toyota truck bearing No.AAH 9387, and seized the truck under the cover of Ex.P-21 panchanama. After completing enquiry, P.W.4 M. Hari Prasad filed complaint before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad against A-1 to 12 for the offence punishable under the Act. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.191 /95. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-48 and M.Os.l to 9. On considering the evidence and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner/A-1 and A-4 guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Act and convicted them accordingly while recording acquittal of A-2, 3, 5, to 12. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner/A-1 and A-4 to suffer RI for six months each. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/A-1 filed Crl.A.No.387/2000 on the file of its Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by judgment dated 5-1-2001 confirmed the conviction of the petitioner/A-1 for the offence under the Act. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner/A-1.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/ A-1 contends that the courts below failed to note that the evidence of P.Ws.l and 5 is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.12 and therefore the conviction of the petitioner/ A-1 for the offence under Sec.3(a) of the Act is not legal and the same is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the alleged recovery of M.Os.l and 2 from the possession of the petitioner/A-1 is much prior to 1-4-95 on which date the theft of the railway material took place. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the courts below have considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found the petitioner/A-1 guilty for the offence under the Act and that the same is not liable to be interfeied in this revision.