STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JAGDISH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal is against the order and Judgment dated 9.12.1992 passed by Smt. Santoshi Tiga, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Railway, Samastipur in Samastipur R.P.F case No. 10/1985 corresponding to Jr. No. 194/1992 by which learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents from the charges under Sec. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (in short as Act).

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 31.1.1985 Birendra Kumar Singh, A.S.I along with police party proceeded to search the house of respondent Jagdish Sharma and when they reached near the house of Jagdish Sharma they found some persons engaged in concealing the properties here and there outside the house on the information given by Sitaram Sharma, brother of Jagdish Sharma about the arrest of son of Jagdish Sharma. It is further said that seeing the raiding party the persons so engaged fled away. House of respondent, Jagdish Sharma was searched and some properties alleged to be railway properties were recovered. Thereafter house of Sitaram Sharma was also searched and from his house also railway properties were recovered. Seizure list was prepared over which signature of Jagdish Sharma was obtained and accordingly a case was registered against them. It further appears that R.P.F personnel after investigation submitted charge sheet against respondent, Jagdish Sharma and his son, Kamala Kant Sharma. Cognizance was taken and both the respondents were put on trial in which the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, some papers were also exhibited and the learned Magistrate by order and Judgment dated 9.12.1992 acquitted the respondents. Against the said acquittal the State has preferred the present appeal before this court.

(3.) It has been argued that the learned Magistrate misconstrued the evidence on record and the order and Judgment of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider that the stolen railway properties were recovered from the house of respondent Jagdish Sharma at his instance. He further argued that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that there was no enmity between the witnesses and respondents and their evidence is consistent one. Learned A.P.P also pointed out that stolen properties were recovered from the conscious possession of respondent Jagdish Sharma.