GOURI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short question has arisen in this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.PC.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. Though notice was sent to the Divisional Manager (Railway) Kota, yet none has appeared on behalf of the railways.

(3.) Gauri Shankar was involved in a case under section 3 of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966. He was convicted by the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (Railway) camp Gangapur City. On appeal the conviction and sentence were set aside. State filed an appeal No. 514/79 which was decided on 18.2.79 and the order of acquittal was not interfered with. When the learned Magistrate had passed the order of conviction on 17.9.77, he passed the order that seized cinder was railway property and it should be handed over to the railway administration. After the acquittal of the petitioner on 12.7.90 it was ordered that the cinder measuring 73,370 Q. Ft. be handed over to the petitioner. It may be stated that one Shri RN. Handa, Assistant Engineer, Kota had taken possession of the cinder from the R.RF. on behalf of railway before/ after challan was submitted in the court of railway Magistrate. But when notice was given to Shri Handa, he stated that he was retired and the cinder was not in his possession. Thereafter a notice was given to the railway administration for delivering the seized cinder to the applicant. The railway and the Railway Protection Force failed to return the seized goods to the petitioner. Thereafter on 27.8.91 the petitioner initiated proceedings against Divisional Manager Railway, Kota and Commandant, Railway Police, Kota as also against Ramesh Chandra Sharma who has seized the goods from the petitioner. But when the learned Magistrate found that the goods were not delivered to Shri Handa by any order of the court, he passed an order that the petitioner may file a civil suit in the court for taking delivery of the seized goods. This order is under challenge in this petition.