KISHUN PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two petitioners in this case named Kishun Poddar and Ramji Poddar. Both of them have been convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955, being Central Act No. 51 of 1955. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) The prosecution case was as follows: The police cases had been lodged about the theft of some brass-bearings etc., said to have been stolen from the Ganga Bridge Railway Stores. Shyam Sundar Singh, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to Garhara Out-Post, had received some confidential information, as a result of which on the 26th of February 1958, at about 5.25 p. m. he went to Teghra Bazar, and searched a shop belonging to one Jageshwar Mahton. This Jageshwar Mahton had also been tried in this case along with these two petitioners, but he has been acquitted. Shyam Sundar Singh, on the search, found 2 maunds 32 1/2 seers of piece of brass-bearing and 12 1/2 seers of other miscellaneous articles. These were found in two bags. According to the prosecution case, all these articles were railway materials. Amongst the articles found and seized by Shyam Sundar Singh, were the subject-matter of the charge, namely, some brass-bearing marked as Exts. 1 series. The two petitioners who were present at the shop, were arrested. According to the prosecution case, the articles in question in this case had been brought by the petitioners to Jageshwar's shop for sale. Substantially upon these allegations, the petitioners were prosecuted in this case.

(3.) The defence case of the petitioners was that on the day previous to the day in question, they had purchased a pony of Keotakothi, Dalsinghsarai, and in the morning of the 26th February 1958, they were returning with the pony. While passing through Teghra Bazar, they found a large number of persons assembled near the shop of Jageshwar Mahton. The shop was being searched by the police. The petitioners haulted, and they were wrongfully arrested by the police. According to the defence case, they had no concern with the articles, which are the subject-matter of the charge. Two defence witnesses were also examined on behalf of the petitioners.