PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SHAIK GALIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State appeal is directed against acquittal of A-1 and A-2 of the offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Section 3 is in these terms :

(2.) What has to be established by the prosecution under section 3 is that the property seized from the accused is the railway property and that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Unless it is established the property seized from the accused is the railway property and is reasonably suspected to be stolen property, the question of punishing the accused person under section 3 does not arise.

(3.) What is contended in this case by Rama Rao, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2) is that there is no evidence to show that the railway property has been stolen or reasonably suspected to have been stolen. A-1 was the driver of the lorry. A-2 had hired the lorry from its owner. The Sub-Inspector was informed about the railway property being removed unlawfully in a lorry. He, therefore, stopped the lorry which was carrying the railway property. That what was seized from the lorry was the railway property is established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3,4 and 5. The case of A-1 and A-2, as revealed by them in their statements under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, is that it is all false. There is no doubt from the evidence of the Sub-Inspector and the panch witnesses that the railway property was seized from the lorry which was being driven by A-1 and which was hired by A-2 having reasonably suspected that it was stolen. A-2 did not say for what purpose he hired the lorry and how the railway property came to be transported in the lorry he hired. May be that the driver of the lorry may not know whether the property belonged to the railways or even if it belonged to the railways, whether A-2 came into lawful or unlawful possession of the same. But A-2, who had hired the lorry has not explained as to how the railway property came to be transported in the lorry hired by him. It is not his case that he had purchased the property from somebody who had lawfully obtained. It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. In this case, there is sufficient evidence for inferring that the railway property was reasonably suspected of having been stolen. If it is not the stolen property, the and accused could have easily explained the source from which he got the railway property. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show that he -came into lawful possession of the same. There is absolutely no explanation from A-2 who hired the lorry. So far as A-1 is concerned, he has to be given the benefit of doubt, and it is not shown that he too was a party to the transportation of the railway property which is suspected to have been stolen. So far as A-2 is concerned, the evidence on record establishes that the property, which was recovered from the lorry hired by him, is the railway property and, in the absence of his explanation as to how he came into possession, it must be held that he came into possession of the property by unlawful means. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that A-2 came into possession of the property by lawful means.