The court upheld the conviction for unlawful possession of railway property, affirming the admissibility of confessions and modifying the sentence to that already served due to prolonged litigation.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.97 of 2006, dated 22.06.2009, whereunder the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Anatapur, while partly allowing the appeal in favour of A4, confirmed the conviction against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are A1 to A3, for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) and reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railways, Guntakal, after elaborate trial found the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offence charged.

3. Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on correct prospective; independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution; the findings are on assumptions or presumptions; grossly erred in relying on the confessional statements made by the petitioners before the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Police; the property seized was not at all the railway property; the testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4 being railway employees and interested witnesses is not sustainable; failure to secure and examine independent witnesses went to the root of the case; the seizer was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 100(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’; and urged to allow the revision. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner No.3 has been suffering from Paralysis and to that effect medical certificates are also filed. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are Coolies and they have unmarried daughters; the petitioner No.2 is suffering from night blindness. Nearly 23 years have passed by from the date of commission of the alleged offence; protracted litigation had caused a lot of metal agony to the petitioners and requested to modify to the sentence already undergone by the petitioners.

4. Per contra, Mr K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws-1, 7, 8 and 9 clearly show that the petitioners had indulged in commission of the offence charged. There were neither misreadings of the evidence nor perverse findings; there was no irregularity let alone material irregularity and both the Courts below concurrently held that the petitioners were guilty and urged to dismiss the revision.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.97 of 2006 dated 22.06.2009, passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, [(2000) 7 SCC 569] at para No.21, 22 and 23 held as under:

“21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 665. Theat was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.

22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by vi