HEMANTA KUMAR PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is filed challenging the order of the learned J. M. F. C., Bhubaneswar in 2 (c) C. C. No. 384 of 1991 convicting the petitioner under S. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession Act (in short 'R. P. (U.P.) Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The said order was confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in criminal appeal No. 48 of 1992.

(2.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that one Balaram Sehera (P.W.1), the S. I. of C. I. B., R. P. F., Khurda along with two constables and one Head constable (P.Ws.2, 3 and 4) while performing secret watch duty on the eastern side of Mancheswar Railway workshop in the night of 14-5-1991 found a cycle being kept near a hole in the boundary wall of the said Railway workshop. They entered inside the Railway workshop through that hole and found that three persons were advancing towards the Northern side with head loads of articles. Those persons on seeing the R.P.F. personnel threw the bags and started running hither and thither. P.Ws. 1 to 4 chased them and P. W. 1 and one P. Papa Rao (who has not been examined) caught hold of the petitioner but the other two persons escaped. The petitioner disclosed his name and on being interrogated by P. W.1, confessed that he was carrying the railway properties along with the other two accused persons, namely, Prafulla Kumar Parida and Pitabas Parida and they threw the same at the spot and ran away. P. W. 1 brought the accused-petitioner to the spot where the properties were thrown, seized the properties which were kept in three gunny bags under a seizure list (Ext. 1) prepared at the spot which was got signed by the petitioner. P.W. 1 recorded the statement of the petitioner (Ext. 2) and arrested him and produced him along with the seized properties and the connected documents before the Inspector of R. P. F., Mancheswar (P.W.5) on 15-5-1991 at 4 A. M., P. W. 5 registered a case under S. 3(a) of the R. P. (U. P.) Act and produced the accused-petitioner along with the prosecution report. Subsequently, the other two accused persons who had escaped, surrendered in Court and all the three accused persons faced their trial for alleged possession of Railway properties.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and the materials seized as M. Os.