PATHANI PINGUA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.03.1998 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Chaibasa in C/7 Case No. 304 of 1993 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 3(A) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified by the learned appellate court from S.I. For 4 months to the period already undergone in custody.

(3.) The prosecution story in brief is that on 08.12.1993 at about 1:30 P.M. officials of the Railway Protection Force had gone to village Paramaljori to inquire about the theft of PNT cables and from the house of the petitioner in the boundary, the lower portion of vacuum cylinder was found present. In the house of the petitioner, the upper portion of the vacuum cylinder was found which was kept for storing paddy grains. The petitioner could not produce any document in support of such material and had subsequently admitted that same was brought from the railway wagon lying by the side of the railway track. The property was seized and thereafter the case being C/7 Case No. 304 of 1993 was instituted against the petitioner. After framing of charge, trial proceeded and after conclusion of trial, the learned Railway Magistrate, Chakradharpur vide judgment dated 201998 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 3 (A) of the RP (UP) Act and thereafter sentenced him to undergo S.I. For 4 months. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1998 in which vide judgment dated 20.08.2002, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa had confirmed the judgment of conviction, but had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had not committed any offence under the provisions of Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act. Learned counsel further submits that there is no independent witness to the alleged seizure and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all members of the Railway Protection Force and thus, being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. It has also been stated that it was never the intention of the petitioner to keep the vacuum cylinder in his house, rather the same was brought from the wagon which was found derailed. It has thus been submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court deserves to be set aside.