SANTOSH KUMAR KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-8-92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1991 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 27-2-91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Midnapore in U.R. Case No. 254 of 1982 (T.R. 269/83) convicting the accused petitioners under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 15-8-82 at about 16.30 hours P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 held an ambush, when they found accused Gurucharan Pasi and Nikhil Chandra Pramanick to carry one brake-beam and to enter into an incomplete structure of bricks having no roof. They followed them and caught red-handed with the said brake beam. Entering into the said structure they found another person named Shib Charan Pasi handling with railway materials. On being asked none of those persons could produce any valid document in support of their possession of such railway materials. All the three accused were arrested and the railway materials were seized under proper seizure list. On further interrogation the said accused persons disclosed that they were paid employees of accused Santosh Karmakar and they were working on his behalf. After completion of enquiry a complaint was filed against all the aforesaid four accused persons alleging commission of offence under Section 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act.

(3.) The order of conviction and sentence was challenged in the lower appellate Court on various grounds, which have been successfully dealt with by the lower appellate Court and the same does not require any repetition. In the present revisional application mainly three points have been raised by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners. The first point raised by Mr. Mukherjee is that search was conducted in this case in violation of Section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. No search warrant was obtained before conducting search and seizure. But I am unable to accept such contention made by Mr. Mukherjee. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that the R.P.F. officers start an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act when any person has been arrested under Section 6 of the said Act by an officer of the Force or he has been arrested by any other member of the Force under Section 7 and is forwarded to the R.P.F. officer. Such arrest can be made by either of them when any person has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act.