BINOD KR. JHUNJHUNWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegation is that on 8 -8 -1975, Sub -Inspector, Arun Kumar Paul, along with others went to 25/B, P. K. Tagore Street, Calcutta, and seized certain articles from the factory of Ajanta Aluminium Company. The allegation is that huge quantity of railway goods were recovered. The accused could not satisfactorily explain their possession of such goods. Some witnesses were examined and thereafter charge was framed against the two accused under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Hence these two Rules at the instance of the two accused.

(2.) THE learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused have stated that the identity of the goods in question has not been established. Moreover, the evidence of the investigating officer shows that the articles are all in broken and damaged condition and are not in serviceable condition. The argument is that since the identity of the articles has not been established and since the same are not In serviceable condition, charge should not have been framed against the accused. Reference may be made to the Bench decision in (1962) 66 Cal WN 269 to show that if the allegation is that there was unlawful possession of railway property, the prosecution must establish that the same is in serviceable condition. If the property is not in serviceable condition the prosecution must fail. This principle was approved by Mr. Justice G. K. Mitter in the case of Kashmiri Lai v. State of U. P. in : 1970CriLJ1647 . It has been stated that it must be proved by the prosecution that the property belonged to the railway and It was used or intended to be used for construction, operation or maintenance of the railway administration.

(3.) THE Rules are made absolute and the impugned proceedings quashed.