RAM NUAMI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has come to us on reference by a learned single Judge of this Court.

(2.) This is an application for quashing of an order by which cognizance of an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleged to have been committed by these four petitioners and two others, has been taken by the Special Railway Magistrate of Barauni in the following circumstances.

(3.) On 14th September, 1971, it is said, a Permanent Way Inspector of the North Eastern Railway at Saharsa, was supervising the cutting of a drain in front of a saw mill of B.D. Premji Patel of which petitioner No. 4 is the manager, and found second hand bridge and line sleepers and some uew sal sleepers in the premises of the mill. Accordingly, he sent an information thereof to the officer-in-charge of G.R.P. As a result of it an entry in the station railway was made. The police officer came to the spot, seized the articles, arrested petitioner No. 4 and then released him on bail. He recorded all these facts also in another station diary entry. Petitioner No. 4 is said to have disclosed that the aforesaid sleepers had been given to him for the purpose of sawing by the other three petitioners in different quantities. G.R.P. did not do anything further. The officer-in-charge of the railway protection force, however, instituted a case against-these petitioners and two others under Section 3 of the Act aforesaid. In view of Section 8 of the Act an enquiry was held in course of which documents were found showing the sale of these sleepers to the first three petitioners in other words, substantiating the defence taken by petitioner No. 4 with regard to his custody and by the other petitioners with regard to the sale of the articles aforesaid to them. During the enquiry these articles were found to be unserviceable for use on railway tracks. As a result, the officer-in-charge of the railway protection force submitted an enquiry report which he described as 'final report', saying that the charge could not be made out due to insufficient evidence.