STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MD. HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 22nd February, 1988 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rourkela in a case instituted for an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

(2.) FACT of the case in brief is that on 4.2.1981 at about 1 P.M., the R.P.F. staff of Rourkela R.P.F. Post, while performing duty in Rourkela Railway Station yard, noticed the accused crossing over the railway yard holding a floating lever. The accused was apprehended and as the accused had no authority and had not given any reason as to how he came to its possession, the same was seized. The seized floating lever was examined by the expert and on completion of the enquiry, prosecution report was submitted against the accused. The accused, however, in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure denied the charge and took a plea that he was called by one Sethi Babu of R.P.F. to Rourkela R.P.F. Post, where he was detained and the case has been filed. The accused had examined one defence witness. In order to prove the case, prosecution had examined four witnesses; P.W. 1 is the S.I. of R.P.F. Post, Rourkela, P.W. 2 is the Senior Rakshak attached to the R.P.F. Post, and P.W. 3 is a Rakshak, while P.W. 4 is Train Examiner in Railways. D.W. 1. is a student, who said that he had seen the accused being called by the R.P.F. officers from his house and that the accused was working in a liquor depot.

(3.) HAVING gone through the judgment of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rourkela and the evidence of witnesses, I do not find any cogent reason to take a different view in the matter. Otherwise also, the date of occurrence is 4.2.1981 and the order of acquittal has been passed on 22.2.1988. The appeal is of the year 1988 and, as such, I feel that after a lapse of about 25 years from the date of occurrence and about 18 years from the date of acquittal reopening of the matter to interfere with the order of acquittal at this stage would not be in the interest of justice and it should be kept at rest.