BHOLA RAM Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision by the applicant Bholaram against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated 17th January, 1972.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the accused-applicant was posted as a "rakshak" in the Railway Protection Force at Railway Station, Ajmer on 26.5.1969. At about 8 p.m. on 26-5-1969 his colleague Damodar Swaroop noticed the accused applicant carrying a package near the railway line on his cycle. Damodar Swaroop questioned the applicant as to why he was carrying the package from the wagon, on which the applicant replied that he should keep quiet, and he would share the booty with him. Damodar Swaroop did not catch hold of the accused-applicant, but informed the Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Shri S.B. Meena, who in turn informed the Assistant Sub-Inspector Liakat Ali. Shri Meena searched for the accused and found him in the yard. On being questioned, the accused-applicant gave the information Ex. P/1 that he had concealed the packet near the compound wall of the Government School. He led the police and the motbirs to the place from where article 1 was recovered. The accused also led the police to the wagon from where the packages had been removed. A case was registered under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and the defence examined one witness. The learned Magistrate hold the accused applicant guilty under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year. The appeal filed by the accused-applicant was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City on 17th Jan., 1972.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the accused-applicant that the "motbirs" of the recovery memo have not supported the story of the prosecution. There were two motbirs; one has not been examined, and the other motbir PW/7 has not supported the prosecution story. It was abo contended on behalf of the accused applicant that the learned Addl. Sessions judge has wrongly incorporated certain facts in the judgment which were not on record. The attention of the Court was drawn to the following paragraph from the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions judge:-