RAM DASS Vs. STATE THROUGH RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , Ram Dass and Sansar Chand along with their three co-accused namely Rattan Singh, Nirmal Singh and Shyam Kishore were booked in a case registered by the Railway authorities under section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act'). The learned trial court (Special Railway Magistrate, Jammu) vide judgment dated 26-10-2002, acquitted Nirmal Singh and Shyam Kishore, whereas convicted the present two petitioners and Rattan Singh sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. Aggrieved of the same all the three had knocked at the door of the appellate court in which vide judgment dated 24-12-2003 (impugned herein) Ratten Singh got some relief in as much as his conviction under section 3 of the Act was diluted of section 4 of the Act and was let off with sentence of fine only to the tune of Rs. 24,000/-. However, conviction of both the petitioners as recorded by the learned trial court was upheld. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) RECORD reveals that the instant petition stands admitted vide order dated 01.08.2005. Trial court record has been received. With the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for both the sides, I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below.

(3.) IN support of his submission, Mr. Shukla relies upon a judgment rendered by Madras High Court in case State by Public Prosecutor v. Rathinavelu, 1973 Cri.L.J. 354 in which the accused/respondent who after being convicted under section 3 of the Act was released on probation and the State being aggrieved of the same preferred a revision petition against the said order. The Hon'ble High Court, while dealing with the aspect of probation, vis-a-vis, minimum sentence provided under the Act, ultimately held that the learned Magistrate had rightly applied the provisions of Probation Act and there was no scope of interference, resultantly dismissed the revision petition. Mr. Salathia does not dispute the factum of detention period already suffered by the petitioners. Otherwise, also Mr. Salathia has not shown any contrary law which would dis-entile the petitioners to the concession of probhation.