JUDGMENT :- Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. The applicant is an accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 20/2000, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class)[Railways], Bhusawal. The allegation against him is that, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 [For short, "RPUP Act"].

3. It is alleged in the complaint tiled by one Ramjilal Tomar, Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Jalgaon, that on 18-7-1999, upon secret information received from the Head of the Railway Protection Force [For short, "RPF"], a raid was carried out at the premises of Dunhill Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., situated at Manyarkheda, Jalgaon, where a rolling mill is being run. A number of items of railway property were found lying in the premises. Inquiries were made with the petitioner, who is the owner of the said rolling mill, as to the said material, and his statement was recorded. The petitioner stated that, the property found by the RPF Officers had been purchased by him in an auction. The petitioner produced the documents showing how he had acquired the property. However, out of the said items of property, the petitioner could not produce any documents in respect of two rail line pieces, a narrow gauge rail line piece, a wagon couple uncouple rod and a wagon spring. These articles were totally weighing about 50 Kgs. and were valued at about Rs. 400/-. These articles were taken charge of, by holding the same to be the railway property, which was in the unlawful possession of the petitioner. After carrying out investigation, a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the RPUP Act has been filed against the petitioner and, as aforesaid, the case is pending.

The prosecution examined four witnesses before charge. The petitioner applied for discharge claiming that, no case for framing of charge had been made out. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 2nd July 2011, rejected the petitioner's application for discharge. The petitioner thereafter moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision application, dismissed it.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its inherent powers and its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, praying that the impugned orders be set aside, and the petitioner be discharged from the said case.

4. I have heard Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents - State. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the petition and the annexures thereto. I have carefully gone through the notes of evidence, as adduced before the Magistrate, copies of which are annexed to the petition.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, in the first place, the raid and the seizure of the property in question, as effected by the officers of the RPF, was itself illegal. She submitted that the offence under Section 3(a) of the RPUP Act is non-cognizable (Section 5 of the RPUP Act). She submitted that, a special procedure for arrest of the offenders and for inquiring into the offences has been laid in the RPUP Act. She drew my attention to the provisions of Section 10 and 11 of the RPUP Act, and contended that, an officer of the RPF would not be entitled to enter in premises, or search the same and/or to take possession of any property, without a search warrant issued by a Magistrate in accordance with Section 10 of the RPUP Act.

6. Even otherwise, on merits, she submitted that, huge property was found with the petitioner, and that, he satisfactorily accounted for the possession thereof. She submitted that, only in respect of an extremely small part of the property, the petitioner could not produce any documents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document