JUDGEMENT
M.S.APTE -
(1.)This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Magistrate of the charge under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
(2.)It appears from the prosecution evidence that 15 bundles, each containing 100 copies of a magazine called Shama, were booked from Delhi for being carried from Delhi Railway Station to Bombay (Dadar) under parcel way Bill bearing No. 294507 dated 21-10-1972. This parcel was carried by Delhi-Bombay Janata Express on the same day which arrived at Bombay Central Railway Station at about 10.10 p.m. on the night of 23rd October, 1972. At the time this train arrived, P.W. 2 Hariharprasad Mishra, who is Rakshak No. 394 attached to the Railway Station Protection Force, was on duty at the Bombay Central Railway Station. On the arrival of the train, he used to check the seals on the parcel waggons of the train. When he went to the off side of the platform, he noticed the respondent-accused carrying one bundle in one of his hands and five loose copies of magazine in another. On suspicion, this Rakshak caught the accused and accosted him and took him to the office of the Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force at Bombay Central Railway Station. Immediately S.I. Meena (P.W. 1) was called from his quarters which are close by. The Sub-Inspector was informed by Hariharprasad Mishra, the Rakshak, as to the circumstances in which he had caught the accused. The panchas were called and the loose magazines and the parcel which was in a broken condition were seized under the panchnama, Exh B; the packet contained the remaining 95 magazines. S.I. Meena then recorded the statement of the accused which is produced at Exh. D in which the accused admitted to have removed that bundle from Train Rack No. 7124 which was attached to Delhi Janata Express, which is called 24 UP. Train. The accused was then arrested and was prosecuted for being found in possession of railway property which was suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained.
(3.)The accused having denied the charge was tried by the learned Magistrate.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.