Unlawful possession of railway property is an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and the prosecution must establish three ingredients: (i) that the accused was found, or is proved to have been in possession of incriminating property, (ii) that the property is railway property, and (iii) that such property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

Headnote:
RAILWAY PROPERTY (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION) ACT, 1966 - SECTION 3 - Possession of Railway Property - Interpretation - Ingredients of Offence - Standard of Proof.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a railway employee, was found in possession of copper wires on railway premises. He was convicted under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, for unlawful possession of railway property.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the prosecution had established the three ingredients of the offence: (i) that the petitioner was found in possession of incriminating property, (ii) that the property was railway property, and (iii) that such property was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. The court also held that the petitioner had failed to show that his possession was lawful.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's possession of copper wires on railway premises constituted an offence under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of "railway property" under section 2(d) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, is wider than the definition of "railway stores" under the repealed Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. The court also held that the standard of proof required under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, is stricter than the standard of proof required under the repealed Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for quashing of his conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT - R.L. AGGARWAL, J.:---This Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 10-11-1975, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dismissing Criminal Revision Application and confirming the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T. Bombay, dated 21-7-1976, convicting the petitioner of the offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentencing the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The few facts which require to be narrated are that on 19-4-1974, Muchran Kushwaha a Railway Rakshak Badge No. 944 and another Rakshak Badge No. 1199, named Lalta Prasad, were on detection duty at Kurla in plain clothes from 20 hours of 8-4-1974 to 8 hours of 19-4-1974. While Mulcharan was watching OHE Workshop, Kurla, he saw at a distance of about 15 feet from platform No. 2, one person having a bag in his left hand and a bundle in his right hand. Another person was seen waiting on the gate of OHE Workshop. Mulcharan suspected some foul-play and apprehended that person and blew his whistle. Hearing the whistle Lalta Prasad came to the spot. Mulcharan took that person in to custody and deputed Lalta Prasad to inform Shri K.D. Tiwari Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Force, Kurla. On receipt of information S.I. Tiwari came to the workshop and found the petitioner in custody of Mulcharan. After carrying out necessary formalities a search of the person of the petitioner was taken under a panchnama. From the packet of the petitioner, a bunch of keys and other articles were found. The petitioner was found carrying 7 pieces of copper wires weighing about 18.05 Kgs. and the same were seized under another panchnama. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner along with another was put up for trial before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T.

3. At the hearing it appears that the main attack on the prosecution evidence was about the unreliability of the panch-witness, Rajaram Haddar who had earlier acted as a panch in 50 to 60 cases. The learned Magistrate was not impressed by that infirmity in the prosecution cases and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt. He accordingly convicted petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

4. The petitioner filed a Revision Application against his conviction and sentence. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge also, the said contention about the panch being a professional panch and not an independent respectable person was repeated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on going through the evidence found that there was ample material to warrant the conviction of the petitioner and accordingly he dismissed the Revision Application.

5. In the present application Mr. Keswani the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Kashmirilal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1868. That was a case under the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. That Act defines "railway stores" as meaning any Article (a) which is the railway property of any railway administration and (b) which used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. It provides by section 3 that if any person is found, or proved to have been in possession of article of railway stores reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, and it cannot be satisfactorily explained how he came in possession, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years or fine or with both. Having regard to the said provisions. Their Lordship said that before any one can be changed with the offence under section 3 it must be shown that he was in possession of railway stores which by the definition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis