STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAHADEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON being found guilty under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the learned Judge gave him the benefit of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. The learned Counsel for the State contends that Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code could have no application to offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. We do not agree. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code occurs in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code, the word 'offence' in that Chapter includes an offence under any Special Act such as the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. It is unfortunate that in M. P. State Govt. v. Amritlal 1953 Nag LJ 357 : AIR 1953 Nag 141 and Emperor v. John Scott (1905) 1 Nag LJ 139. on which reliance is placed, the provisions of Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code were not brought to the notice of the Court.

(2.) IT was next contended that Section 14 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act precluded its application to the facts of the case. In our opinion, this contention has also no force, as there is nothing inconsistent between Section 14 of the Act and the provisions of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. The Act nowhere lays down that, however trivial be the subject-matter of unlawful possession under the Act. the offender must necessarily be held guilty and punished under its provisions.

(3.) IN our opinion, the case raises no question of any difficulty or such importance as would warrant the grant of the certificate asked for.