SUDIP DEBNATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the first information report pertaining to DMG/RPF/Case No.1(12)/10 under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. In the FIR (Annexure-1 to the application) it has been alleged that 4 numbers of dumpers(Truck) of which two loaded with ballast and other two standing empty by the side of ballast stack. When the drivers of those dumpers and one JCB were interrogated, they could not give any satisfactory reply regarding loading of railway stone (ballast) nor could produce any legal documents. On further interrogation of those drivers, they disclosed that one Sri Sudip Debnath, S/O. Nani Gopal Debnath of Jirania, A.A.Road, (College Chowmohani) P.S. Jirania, DistrictWest Tripura hired their vehicles from their owners. They also supplied the names of the vehicle owners. The complainant, one of the ASI of RPF, Dharmanagar, seized all the dumpers and one JCB along with the papers on preparing a seizure list on the spot in presence of witnesses and all the drivers were taken into custody. On the basis of the said complaint, the case being DMG/RPF/Case No.1(12)/10 was registered under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. This petition has been filed for quashing the said proceeding on the ground that the documents as annexed to this criminal petition would irresistibly establish that the railway stone (ballast), as stacked in the railway yard, do not belong to the railways.

(2.) Heard Mr. P. K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Lodh, learned standing counsel, N.F. Railway for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner contended that the said stones (ballast) were supplied by him to the railway contractor, namely, M/S. Bhartia Associates Pvt. Ltd., but the railway authorities declined to accept those stones (ballast) as they were being inferior quality. The contention of the petitioner is simple that since the railway authorities are not the owner of those ballast, on the contrary, while the petitioner is the owner of those ballast, he cannot be prosecuted to any criminal proceeding for taking back the rejected materials and cannot be made to suffer a prolonged criminal process that too in the Railway Court located at Tinsukia. This Court vide order dated 16.06.2011, in the interim, suspended the further proceeding of DMG/RPF/Case No.1(12) of 2010.