KISHUN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision application has been convhtel under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has bsen sentenced to undergo regorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12-4-1971 at about 8 p. m. the informant (P. W. 1), who was the Head Rakshak of the Railway Protection Force and was on duty at Gate No. 6 of the Jamalpur Railway Workshop, noticed the petitioner coming out of the said workshop. Hs got suspicions on the movement of the petitioner, an .1, as such, be accosted him. After some interrogation and search it was discovered that the petitioner was taking out a brass-cum-bronze material belonging to the railway from the workshop having concealed in his clothes. The petitioner was immediately arrested and case was lodged against him. The search and seizure has bsen made in presence of witnesses. On the relevant date the petitioner was a railway employee employed in the said workshop. After investigation on enquiry report was submitted and in du-3 course the petitioner was put on trial for an offence under section 3 of the Act. The petitioner was initially tried by a Magistrate at Bhagalpur who had been designated as Special Railway Magistrate. He had the jurisdiction to try offences which have been committed not only in the Bhagalpur district but as well as in the district of Monghyr and others. In the instant case, although the offence was committed within the district of Monghyr, the trial of the petitioner was taken up by the said Railway Magistate of Bhagalpur. On 12-9-1972 charge under section 3 of the Act was framed by that Magistrate. It is said that witnesses were also examined by him. However, on 23-8-1974 learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr passed an order transferring the case in question from the court of that Railway Magistrate to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Monghyr. After transfer, the records were put up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Monghyr, Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Monghyr examined the petitioner under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code) and, thereafter, heard the arguments and ultimately by his judgment dated 25-7-1975 he held tlu petitioner guilty under section 3 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, as already stated above. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Monghyr which was heard by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, who, on a consideration of the materials on record, affirmed the finding of trial court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The present revision application is directed against that judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner questioned the legality of the conviction and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Monghyr on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to convict and sentence the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, for trying offence under section 3 of the Act the only competent court was the Railway Magistrate at Bhagalpur and the Sessions Judge, Monghyr hud no authority in law to withdraw the said case from the file of the aforesaid Railway Magistrate and to transfer the same to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moghyr. According to him, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is vitiated.