KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision, Krishan Gopal and Siri Ram petitioners assail their conviction under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Railway Magistrate (Haryana) Ambala Cantt. sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, upheld their conviction and sentence hence the revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On February 1, 1979, at about 9.00 P.M. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Assistant. Sub -Inspector of Railway Protection Force along with Senior Rakshak Bhim Singh and Brij Lal Rakshak, were on night patrol duty and while doing so when they came from Mandeveri Yard to Mandeveri Gate, two persons in suspicious circumstances were noticed by them near the wall of a canteen. They were apprehended two bundles containing two aluminium assembly frame pieces carried by each of them were recovered. All these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA and were identified by a Chargeman of the Jagadhri Workshop. After necessary investigation, the accused petitioners were sent up to take their trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined Bhim Singh Senior Rakshak PW. 1, A.K. Sood Chargeman PW. 2, Brij Lal Rakshak PW.3 and Shiv Kumar Assistant Sub -Inspector PW 4. When examined under section 313, Criminal procedure Code, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication in the case and examined two witnesses in defence.

(3.) I have been taken through the record and I find that there is no evidence to show that the articles recovered from the possession of the petitioner were Railway property. No doubt, A.K. Sood (PW. 2) who was a Chargeman of the Tank Cleaning Carriage Repair, has deposed that the articles recovered from the petitioners were in the shape of pieces of aluminium of window assembly frames of approximate size 4'x5' and the same were being used in coaching stock of Indian Railway. The witness also maintained that these pieces of aluminium were available only in the Jagadhari Workshop but he has not given the basis on which his opinion was based. This statement is wholly insufficient to come to a conclusive finding that the recovered articles belonged to the Railway. It is also not disputed that there was no marking of the Railway found on the articles recovered from the petitioners. This being the position, I find, it cannot be held that the pieces of aluminium recovered from the petitioners were the property of the Railway. Consequently, I allow the revision petition and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, acquit them. Revision allowed.