KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., has been preferred against the order dated 15th Nov., '88, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, (Railways), Jaipur, has taken cogizance against the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is one of the rare cases where this Court can interfere against the order of taking cognizance.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to Section 3 of the Act, penalty for unlawful possession of railway property, has been provided. According to this section, whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any railway property, reasonably suspected of having been stolen or the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punished. So, first of all, it is to be established that the property which was seized, i.e., the cement bags belonged to the railway. Then, it is to be proved that the petitioner and Harisingh were in possession of the cement bags unlawfully. It is pertinent to note that the railway godown of which, the petitioner was incharge, was checked and the bags lying in the godown were counted, and it was found that the stock in the godown was as per the stock -register. Thus, the learned counsel argued that this shows that the cement of the railway was not at all taken out from the godown. There were no marks on these bags, of the railway. If they were railway -property, the bags must have borne the identification mark of the railway. Then, if they were taken out of the godown, which was in charge and under control of the petitioner, then, the stock in the godown must have been less. 105 bags were seized, and if these bags were taken out from the godown, which was under the control of the petitioner, then, the stock in the register should have been less, whereas, to the contrary, it was found that the stock in the godown was correct according to the stock register. This shows that these 105 bags which were seized, were not taken out from the godown of the railway. There were no identification marks on those bags so as to presume that they belonged to the railway administration.