The court upheld the conviction under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and found the sentence to be just and in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

2. Accused is in revision challenging the order passed in C.C.No.933/2005 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore by Judgment dated 29.11.2011 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'RP (UP) Act' for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.157/2011, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysore by judgment dated 04.02.2012.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under :

Accused has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2004 at about 10 a.m., in front of Diamond Gujari Shop, Dodda Gujari Market in Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore, accused was found in possession of one white plastic bag containing one number of B.G. brake block and one number of railway broken solar panel valued at Rs.1000/-without proper licence and therefore, the head of the raid party seized the same and drafted the mahazer and filed a report. There afterwards, case came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act. The same was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offence.

4. The presence of the accused was secured before the learned Magistrate and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and as such, trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution in all examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and relied on 12 documentary evidence which were marked and exhibited as Exs.P1 to 12 and material objects namely brake plate and solar panel marked as M.Os.1 and 2.

6. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. However, accused did not choose to lead any evidence nor place his version on record by examining himself or by placing necessary written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, learned Magistrate heard the parties in detail and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as aforesaid.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.157/2011. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the accused is in the Revision Petition.

9. In the Revision Petition, the following grounds are raised:

"1. The judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and appellate courts are wholly illegal and contrary to the facts of the case.

2. The courts below erred in holding that the prosecution has established the possession of Railway property by the accused without considering that the ingredients of the offence are not proved by the cogent evidence.

3. The courts below relied upon the official witnesses only without examining independent witnesses to base the conviction.

4. The courts belowerred in relying upon the evide of PW-1 and PW-2 which were full of contradiction.

5. The courts below failed to note that the MOs 1 & 2 recovered does not have special marks to say that they belonged to Railways.

6. The courts below erred in relying upon Ex.P-3 Mahazar wherein there is contradictions in the place of theft.

7. The courts below erred in relying upon the volunary statements of the accused as per Ex.P2 which is inadmissible under the provisions of Secs. 24 and 26 of the Ind